Republocrat: Chapter 3 "Not-So-Fantastic Mr. Fox"

The scandal and turmoil engulfing Fox News Channel reminded me of this post from 2010. It was part of a series I did on a book by Carl Trueman called Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative.



Shortly after moving here from England; Republocrat author Carl Trueman was told by a well-meaning Christian friend that he should watch Fox News because -- "that's the unbiased news channel." Upon investigation it turned out that FNC wasn't that historical rarity: a truly unbiased source of reportage, instead, it was a source of around-the-clock conservative commentary and spin. Lest you're thinking this assesment of Fox News is a case of British snobbery, the venerable BBC comes in for some harsh criticism too: "Visiting home recently, I was shocked to see that, in my nearly nine-year absence, the BBC seems to have been taken over by a bunch of New Labour groupies. . ." (p. 41)

The point is -- the BBC has a left of center bias, as do most of the mainstream media institutions in the United States (e.g. CNN, MSNBC, New York Times). It's fine and good that Fox News wants to provide an alternative viewpoint to the left-wing MSM, but don't say with a straight face that Fox is unbiased. As Trueman points out -- we all have our biases. In his history class he makes an important distinction between objectivity and neutrality.

I like to argue in class that in the writing of history, no one can be neutral, but historians can be objective. (p. 42)

Some historians are more objective than others, and so are some news channels. On the rare occasions when I watch cable news I usually turn to CNN because (in my opinion) they do a better job of giving a full picture and more objective viewpoint than the outliers on the right and left (see, I have a centrist bias). The fact, though, that CNN's ratings have been in decline relative to their main competitors is an indication of what the public wants.

What the public increasingly wants, it seems, is news and commentary that confirms what they already believe -- and the more outrageous and shrill the better. Instead of exposing ourselves to a variety of voices we gravitate to those that validate our prejudices and stoke our fears. If you're a worried conservative who believes in your gut that they (liberals, Europeans, George Soros, etc.) are out to get us, then the fevered monologues and talking points of Beck and O'Reilly will strike a chord. This in itself isn't all that remarkable. What is remarkable are the legions of conservative Christians who've reacted to the bias of the "liberal media" by annointing Rupert Murdoch's channel as defender of traditional values and purveyor of all that's true, right and good.

How well does this reputation stack up with reality? After a devastatingly funny deconstruction of a couple of representative quotes from the aforementioned stars of the Fox firmament (see pp. 44-49) the author turns to Murdoch and his media empire. I have to say that Trueman really has it out for Mr. Murdoch. In fact he admits a Beckian conspiratorial bent in his fixation on the Aussie mogul.

To start with -- Murdoch personally is no paragon of family values. He's on his third marriage to the young vice president of one of his many media properties (Star TV) who he married mere days after his second divorce. That behavior in itself isn't necessarily a reason not to watch his channels or read his newspapers. I've written in this space about my admiration for the movies of Woody Allen -- this despite his tawdry personal life. However, while conservative Christians are quick to condemn the private peccadillos of a liberal like Woody Allen, "the Christian Right. . . is often very forgiving of the private failings of its heroes, as in the case of Rush Limbaugh with his various marriages and his well-publicized drug addiction." (pp. 51-2)

Beyond Murdoch's personal life there's his ownership of The Sun -- "a tabloid known for setting the bar as low as it gets when it comes to journalism" and it's "daily diet of beautiful, topless women. Indeed, prior to the advent of the World Wide Web, it is possible that Murdoch was responsible for putting more soft pornography into more houses than anybody else in history." (p. 52) Trueman wonders aloud how Christian fathers would feel if they opened up the newspaper and saw their daughter posing naked for the leering masses. Also, it's easy to forget the Fox part of Fox News -- that network whose stock-in-trade is raunchy sitcoms that mock the values cherished by conservative Christians and encourage us to laugh at family dysfunction.

The take-home message from this chapter is that Christians should be more "eclectic" in what they read, watch and listen to. Don't get all your news from the same source. Realize that all news channels have their biases. Be intentional in exposing yourself to voices that challenge your view of the world. If we take into account the wide-ranging impact of sin on people and institutions then we'll approach any media outlet with a degree of skepticism. Trueman encourages his readers to emulate the Greek apologists of the early church by taking seriously our responsibility to be the most thoughtful and informed citizens we can be, as opposed to those who traffic in "clichés, slander, and lunatic conspiracy theories." (p. 59)

In short, the primary aim of this chapter isn't to convince Christians that they shouldn't turn on Fox News. It's to convince them that they shouldn't turn on Fox News with their God-given critical faculties turned off.

Next: the uneasy marriage of Christianity and capitalism.


Quotes from Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2010)

A pro-life story

The other day Rod Dreher wrote: "Argument has its place, but story is what truly moves the hearts and minds of men." An example . . .

Courage and intolerance

Not being a follower of professional basketball I had never heard of Jason Collins or Chris Broussard until today. Yesterday NBA veteran Collins broke new ground by "coming out" as a gay man. This was almost universally hailed as the brave and courageous act of a civil rights pioneer. But then ESPN commentator Broussard showed what real courage looks like by appearing on ESPN's "Outside the Lines" and forthrightly stating his belief that homosexual sex is called sin by the Bible, and that the unrepentant practice of same is incompatible with following Jesus. From the immediate reaction it appears these views are too outside the lines for even OTL.

I haven't watched the interview, but I've read the transcript of his remarks, and as far as I can tell Broussard didn't advocate stifling Collins' ability to use his platform as an NBA star to exercise his free speech or continue to make a living playing pro ball. Maybe Broussard could have been more nuanced -- and there's more that could have been said about the issues surrounding Collins' announcement than the format of a 60-minute TV program allows -- however, simply by refusing to affirm what the Bible calls sin Broussard has been tarred as an intolerant hater.

Who is the real hero here? Who's the courageous one. Is it the public figure saying the popular thing, or the one bringing an unpopular message that may well get him fired before all is said and done? And who's being intolerant? Broussard, or the people calling for his head?

Tony Stone of Reformed African American Network makes this point exceedingly well. Be sure to click through and read the whole article.

Speaking of boldness, all this talk about Jason Collins’ announcement being brave and courageous (to millions of cheers and a call from President Obama) makes no sense when it’s really Chris Broussard who’s the media underdog. Jason was saying the popular thing. Chris said the unpopular thing. What I find particularly interesting are the comments being left on blogs. In one blog, a person said that Mr. Broussard should leave his religion out of basketball and only talk about sports. He said this to almost 3 dozen “likes”. What’s ironic about his sentiment is that everyone is completely ok with Jason Collins using his NBA platform to unveil his sexual preferences. What this shows us is that we all know deep down that sports, media, etc. all exist for greater purposes. Nobody is even satisfied with “good basketball”- we all want our platform to make a mark and change the way that people think about all areas of life, even the most private ones. As Christians, we can navigate these waters with accuracy because we know that the most private thing in this life is my desperate heart’s faithful gaze to Christ. This private thing also exists at the same time as the most publicly beneficial news known to mankind. May we all find strength and courage in Christ to preach the Gospel with delight and conviction.

I join Stone in that prayer, and I'm reminded of Jesus' words to his disciples: Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.

I am unlimited?

It's tempting to see this new ad from Sprint as just an advertisement, part of the wallpaper of noise that constantly surrounds us. But look and listen more closely. In thirty seconds the marketers at Sprint are selling us a very particular anthropology and vision of the good life. Unlimited. This is what it means to be a flourishing human. The ad also ventures into the territory of metaphysics and theology by skillfully equating the supernatural, or miraculous, with technological advance. The implications of this audacious sales pitch will fly right by the average viewer. Or will they? The ad execs at Sprint are betting lots of money that their 30-second "pedagogy of desire" will have an impact -- even if only at a subconscious non-cognitive level.

What not to look for in tonight's Presidential debate

Mark Mitchell writing at Front Porch Republic:

We have a situation today where presidential candidates must of necessity pretend that they are omniscient and omni-competent. Imagine a candidate having the honesty to say, “Hmm. Good question. I’m not sure I have an adequate answer.” We also have created a situation in which we seem to expect the presidential candidate to have a policy proposal for virtually any problem. Imagine a candidate saying, “That’s not a problem for the President to solve. That’s a problem that is best addressed by local communities. After all, the federal government, much less the presidency, is not tasked with solving every problem. And if it tried to do so, it would likely create more problems that it solved.” Both replies are losing strategies in an age where the president is looked to as the provider of all. This optimism always proves ill-founded, yet every election cycle the hope is rekindled. The rhetoric is dusted off, and the promises are made–promises that simply cannot be kept.

Maybe we'll be surprised and one of the candidates will acknowledge that he isn't the all-knowing answer to every one of America's problems. In which case, I just might spontaneously decide to vote for that guy. As Mitchell explains -- quoting the late great Christopher Lasch -- the reason why we shouldn't expect humility is due to the mediating role of television and big media in presidential debates. Under this influence facts are things to be manipulated and the worst sin is to be at a loss for words.

Germany v. Greece preview and some classic Python

Later today Germany will be taking on Greece in the quarterfinals of the 2012 European Football Championship. This affair held every four years rivals the World Cup as both sport and spectacle. Germany with their brand of attractive muscular football is thought by many (me included) to be the team that will take the crown from defending champion Spain, while few expected Greece to get this far, which they did by knocking out the heavily favored Russians.

This match has interesting parallels in the economic turmoil engulfing the Eurozone. The Greek economy is crippled by massive debt, and Germany is the economic superpower holding all the cards. A victory against the Germans would be a morale boost to a country desperately in need of something to feel good about. To pull off the upset the Greeks will have to rely on a stingy ultra-conservative style of football that belies their nation's fiscal reputation. Don't bet on it happening though. Die Mannschaft is just too good.

This isn't the first time Germany and Greece have met on the pitch. Here's an earlier meeting brought to you by Monty Python.

A moment of candor from Shep Smith

Exactly.

When asked about the Trayvon Martin case Bill Cosby shared his feelings about gun violence. . .

1984 or Brave New World? (Postman on Orwell & Huxley)

This is a quote worth pondering. It's from Neil Postman's 1985 polemic against television Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in an Age of Show Business (Introduction, pp. vii-viii).

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distraction." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

Who was the greater prophet? Orwell or Huxley? Postman saw Huxley as the more prophetic as he surveyed the state of Western society in the mid-80s! (imagine if he lived long enough to see the rise of social media) -- a society where a voracious appetite for entertainment collided with an unprecedented explosion of information. I don't know if Postman invented the term "infotainment" but he described it better than anyone.

Fast forward to 2012 and the predictions of Huxley (and Postman) looks even more on point. It's been a few decades since we've gone from a predominantly word-based society to one based predominantly on images. To take one minor example: compare the average mass-market periodical from the 19th or early-20th century with what you find in the waiting room of your doctor's office -- glossy fare comprised of image after image, advertisement after advertisement, perfect for mindlessly flipping through to ward off the boredom.

It's not that people have stopped reading books, but increasingly they are merely entertainment filler to pass the time while getting from Point A to Point B. The practical effect described by Huxley may be the same though. I'm someone who values images as much as the next guy. I love cinema! But if that wasn't counterbalanced by a love and appetite for the written word I'd be much the poorer spiritually, intellectually and emotionally.

More importantly, as someone who loves Christ's church, I have to wonder: how much has she given in to the privileging of images over words? Images can be a powerful tool to convey truths about God and his world, but God has chosen to reveal himself to us primarily through words, and the incarnate Word, Jesus. Plus the Bible takes a dim view of images as they relate to God, and worship that pleases him (see the Second Commandment, etc). Images can point us to the gospel, but we still need words to convey it's content. Hopefully we haven't lost the ability to proclaim it and receive it. May it never be said of the church -- as Huxley feared for society at large -- that truth is being "drowned in a sea of irrelevance!"

Jesse vs. FNC

Though I'm sympathetic with the concerns of the Occupy Wall Street movement/campout taking place in lower Manhattan I suspect it's as much about anarchism and highly degreed angst as it is about advancing any constructive political agenda. Perhaps time will prove me wrong. In any case it's resulted in some interesting street theater, as in this confrontation between a Fox News producer and protestor Jesse LaGreca. Not surprisingly the interview never made it on the air, but was captured by another camera, posted on YouTube, and quickly went viral.

I'd rather be ruled by a competent [fill in the blank]

Fox News talking head Ainsley Earhardt has gotten herself into some hot water for declaring on teevee that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney isn't a Christian. The Christian Post reports the details here.

My response is that unless Ms. Earhardt is an authorized officer of a Christian church examining Romney's fitness to be a member, then, speculations about the genuineness of his faith in Christ are beside the point. On the other hand maybe she's reacting against those who confuse traditional family values and social conservatism with Christianity, in which case it's worth repeating that Mormonism -- in spite of its wholesome characteristics -- is indeed a false gospel by any New Testament definition.

But. If Governor Romney turns out to the best candidate I'll have no problem casting my vote for him despite our theological differences. On this one I'll let Martin Luther have the last word. "I would rather be ruled by a competent Turk (i.e., Muslim) than an incompetent Christian."

Cold is not a flavor

Christiane Amanpour interviews Tim Keller

If you aren't able to watch the embedded video you can watch it on YouTube.

Martin Bashir 1 Rob Bell 0

TV's family-friendly idols

Mike Cosper reveals The 3 Most Disturbing Words on TV:

Few Christians would openly defend viewing a show like Rock of Love, but who doesn’t get teary-eyed watching the final moments of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition? Never mind that it’s a spinoff of a show about radical plastic surgery, EMHE pulls together a whole community to give a deserving family a new, grandiose home. Who could argue with that?

Which brings me to the three most disturbing words on television: “Move that bus.”

Again, there’s no arguing with the warmth and altruistic sentiments of the show. The families who have been profiled always seem to be wonderful people, I don’t impugn them or the show’s creators with secret evil intentions. But a disturbing thing happens in the final moments of the show. After profiling the family’s suffering, after talking about hardship and perseverance, after recruiting an army of volunteers, the family is brought in front of the new home, which is hidden from view by a large touring bus. They count down and call out those three words, and the reaction can only be described as worship. There are tears and shouting while people fall to their knees, hands raised in the air.

Here it is on bold display: the ultimate hope of most Americans. It’s as though a phantom voice is responding to their suffering with the words, Well done, good and faithful servant. Here is your reward: dreamy bedrooms, big-screen TVs, privacy fencing, and wireless internet. We watch. We weep. And we hope for ourselves. It’s yet another gospel alternative, this one packaged as a heart-warming vision of the way life is “supposed to be."

The point here isn't to single out one particular television show. It's to warn Christians against watching this show, or any show, uncritically. Television and movies are in the business of selling idols. Don't be fooled by the packaging.

Trueman strikes again

Carl Trueman:

One of the most depressing things about the current season of political stumping in the USA is the mindless nature of so much of the discourse. The recent sight of the unbearably self-important and ill-informed Bill O'Reilly and the overwheeningly self-righteous and equally ignorant Whoopi Goldberg squaring off in a TV spat about as realistic and spontaneous as a Hulk Hogan smackdown just about says it all. The most popular TV pundit of the Right, who yet cannot define `socialism,' versus the advocate for women's rights who does not regard the drugging, and forcible and perverted sexual violation of a thirteen year old girl as `rape.' If ever we needed a microcosmic demonstration of all that is wrong with left and right, those two say it all: it is all about empty posturing, extreme slogans, and, above all, entertainment.

More worrying, however, is the role of the religious in all this. The culture of extreme nonsense that leads many to regard the O'Reillys, Becks, Goldbergs and Olbermanns of this world as serious contributors to intelligent debate and discussion is, sadly, alive and well in religious circles, and frequently fed by such. Just recently, I read a comment in World Magazine describing Obama as a `Marxist-Christian syncretist.' Of course, Marxism, like socialism, is a term the Religious Right love to hate, even as they often struggle to be able to define it with any degree of precision. For myself, while disagreeing with many of Obama's policies, I find characterisation of him as a Marxist to be ridiculous, risible, and an affront to those who have truly struggled (and continue to struggle) under real totalitarian Marxist regimes. Indeed, when the `M' word is used by the Religious Right in the USA, it would seem to function in the same hyperbolic way as the phrase `You've totally ruined my life!' functions for the typical teenager whose cell phone has been confiscated for a couple of hours by an irate parent.

BTW Trueman's new book Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative will be arriving in my mailbox any day. I have a sneaking suspicion that sacred cows of both left and right will come in for a thrashing.

David Simon on WNYC

Here's a 15-minute interview with David Simon, creator of The Wire, chatting about Paths of Glory (novel and film), politics, the future of journalism and the American city. The interviewer is Brian Lehrer. Simon is in New York to introduce a special screening of Kubrick's masterpiece tonight at Film Forum. Oh to be there.

Glenn Beck, Howard Zinn and middle-class discontent

One of my co-workers is getting on a plane tonight and flying to Washington, D.C. for the big Glenn Beck "Restoring Honor" rally tomorrow at the Lincoln Memorial. It just so happens that tomorrow is the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, which interestingly enough, was delivered at what was billed as the "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom." I have to say it takes a lot of chutzpah to cast oneself in the role of MLK, but hey, it's a free country.

I'll be too busy doing yardwork, daddy duties, and other weekend tasks to watch the proceedings on TV, but I'm guessing there will be a lot of talk about the evils of Big Government. There may even be talk of the "s word", the one that ends in "ist" or "ism." I'm as leery of big government as the next guy, but I hope the speakers -- which include the ex-governor of Alaska -- acknowledge that Big Government didn't begin with Obama -- or even FDR. Howard Zinn, who I've become fond of quoting, explains:

"Big government" had, in fact, begun with the Founding Fathers, who deliberately set up a strong central government to protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful, offering millions of acres of free land to the railroads, setting high tariffs to protect manufacturers, giving tax breaks to oil corporations, and using its armed forces to suppress strikes and rebellions.

It was only in the twentieth century, especially in the thirties and sixties, when the government, besieged by protests and fearful of the stability of the system, passed social legislation for the poor, that political leaders and business executives complained about "big government."

The point is that the virtue or evil of "big government" is in the eye of the beholder. I'm more concerned with who Big Government benefits -- the rich and powerful? Or the poor and struggling -- especially those trying to play by the rules of the system only to discover that the system is rigged? I'd prefer it benefit the latter, though if I were rich and powerful I'd probably give a different answer.

To be fair to Mr. Beck he taps into a legitimate and widespread disillusionment that's no longer just the province of the obviously disenfranchised (like those who flocked to the Mall on August 28, 1963). In the same book quoted from above Zinn predicted that "We may, in the coming years, be in a race for the mobilization of middle-class discontent." Right now Beck and the quite diverse coalition he speaks for is winning that race. Whether the answers put forward by Beck & Co. will solve the problems driving that discontent is less clear. And if Obama is thrown out on his ear in 2012 will we see a left wing version of tea party populism arise? Clearly, Howard Zinn was writing from a different ideological perspective than Beck or Palin are coming from, but read the following and see if it doesn't describe a lot of what's driving the Tea Party movement.

The surveys since the early seventies show 70 to 80 percent of Americans distrustful of government, business, the military. This means the distrust goes beyond blacks, the poor, the radicals. It has spread among skilled workers, white-collar workers, professionals; for the first time in the nation's history, perhaps, both the lower classes and the middle classes, the prisoners and the guards, were disillusioned with the system. . . . Millions of people have been looking desperately for solutions to their sense of impotency, their loneliness, their frustration, their estrangement from other people, from the world, from their work, from themselves. . . . It is as if a whole nation were going through a critical point in its middle age, a life crisis of self-doubt, self-examination.

All this, at a time when the middle class is increasingly insecure economically. . . . Capitalism has always been a failure for the lower classes. It is now beginning to fail for the middle classes.

The threat of unemployment, always inside the homes of the poor, has spread to white-collar workers, professionals. A college education is no longer a guarantee against joblessness, and a system that cannot offer a future to the young coming out of school is in deep trouble. If it happens only to the children of the poor, the problem is manageable; there are the jails. If it happens to the children of the middle class, things may get out of hand.

Was Howard Zinn a prophet? Keep in mind he wrote all that in the 1980's. Will things "get out of hand"? We shall see.


Quotes from A People's History of the United States: 1492 - Present (pp. 636-7, 650-1)

When the price is too right

Read the story behind this unprecedented television moment here.

Why the cable news pundits are full of it

@ The Frontal Cortex

Money quotes:

"Once we identify with a political party, the world is edited so that it fits with our ideology."

"We now associate political interest with partisan blowhards on cable TV, these pundits and consultants and former politicians who trade facile talking points. Instead of engaging with contrary facts, the discourse has become one big study in cognitive dissonance. And this is why the predictions of pundits are so consistently inaccurate. Unless we engage with those uncomfortable data points, those stats which suggest that George W. Bush wasn't all bad, or that Obama isn't such a leftist radical, then our beliefs will never improve."