Fox News uses the word ‘hate’ much more than MSNBC or CNN

 

`Fox News is up to five times more likely to use the word “hate” in its programming than its main competitors, according to our new study of how cable news channels use language.

Fox particularly uses the term when explaining opposition to Donald Trump. His opponents are said to “hate” Trump, his values and his followers.

Our research, which ran from Jan. 1 to May 8, 2020, initially explored news of Trump’s impeachment. Then came the coronavirus. As we sifted through hundreds of cable news transcripts over five months, we noticed consistent differences between the vocabulary used on Fox News and that of MSNBC.

While their news agendas were largely similar, the words they used to describe these newsworthy events diverged greatly.

Fox and hate

For our study, we analyzed 1,088 program transcripts from the two ideologically branded channels – right-wing Fox and left-wing MSNBC – between 6 p.m. and 10:59 p.m.

Because polarized media diets contribute to partisan conflict, our quantitative analysis identified terms indicating antipathy or resentment, such as “dislike,” “despise,” “can’t stand” and “hate.”

We expected to find that both of the strongly ideological networks made use of such words, perhaps in different ways. Instead, we found that Fox used antipathy words five times more often than MSNBC. “Hate” really stood out: It appeared 647 times on Fox, compared to 118 on MSNBC.

Fox usually pairs certain words alongside “hate.” The most notable was “they” – as in, “they hate.” Fox used this phrase 101 times between January and May. MSNBC used it just five times.

To put these findings in historic context, we then used the GDELT Television database to search for occurrences of the phrase “they hate” on both networks going back to 2009. We included CNN for an additional comparison.

We found Fox’s usage of “they hate” has increased over time, with a clear spike around the polarizing 2016 Trump-Clinton election. But Fox’s use of “hate” really took off when Trump’s presidency began. Beginning in January 2017, the mean usage of “they hate” on the network doubled.

Fox says 'they hate' way more than CNN or MSNBC

Since 2011 all three major cable news channels used the phrase "they hate" in their evening newscasts (between 6 and 11 p.m.). But starting with the 2016 Clinton-Trump race, FOX News has done so far more often than CNN and MSNBC.

‘Us’ versus ‘them’

So who is doing all this hating – and why – according to Fox News?

Mainly, it’s Democrats, liberals, political elites and the media. Though these groups do not actually have the same interests, ideology or job description, our analysis finds Fox lumps them together as the “they” in “they hate.”

When Fox News anchors say "they hate..."

Quantitative analysis shows Fox News' used the phrase "they hate" frequently on its evening programing between January and May 2020, most commonly referring to Democrats (29% of the time) or to a non-specific group like "political elites" (24% of the time). Many of these terms were used interchangeably, as if they were one group unified in their hatred.

As for the object of all this hatred, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and other Fox hosts most often name Trump. Anchors also identify their audience – “you,” “Christians” and “us” – as the target of animosity. Only 13 instances of “they hate” also cited a reason. Examples included “they can’t accept the fact that he won” or “because we voted for [Trump].”

Who's being hated, according to Fox News

Thirty-six percent of times that Fox News anchors said "they hate" between January and May 2020, Trump was the alleged target of that hatred. A smattering of other targets were also named ("you," "me," "Christians," etc.). Rarely did Fox anchors offer a reason for this animosity.

Citing liberal hate as a fact that needs no explanation serves to dismiss criticism of specific policies or events. It paints criticism or moral outrage directed at Trump as inherently irrational.

For loyal Fox viewers, these language patterns construct a coherent but potentially dangerous narrative about the world.

Our data show intensely partisan hosts like Hannity and Carlson are more likely than other Fox anchors to use “they hate” in this way. Nevertheless, the phrase permeates Fox’s evening programming, uttered by hosts, interviewees and Republican sources, all painting Trump critics not as legitimate opponents but hateful enemies working in bad faith.

By repeatedly telling its viewers they are bound together as objects of the contempt of a powerful and hateful left-leaning “elite,” Fox has constructed two imagined communities. On the one side: Trump along with good folks under siege. On the other: nefarious Democrats, liberals, the left and mainstream media.

Research confirms that repeated exposure to polarized media messages can lead news consumers to form firm opinions and can foster what’s called an “in-group” identity. The us-versus-them mentality, in turn, deepens feelings of antipathy toward the perceived “out-group.”

The Pew Research Center reports an increasing tendency, especially among Republicans, to view members of the other party as immoral and unpatriotic. Pew also finds Republicans trust Fox News more than any other media outlet.

Americans’ divergent media sources – and specifically Fox’s “hate”-filled rhetoric – aren’t solely to blame here. Cable news is part of a larger picture of heightened polarization, intense partisanship and paralysis in Congress.

Good business

Leaning into intense partisanship has been good for Fox News, though. In summer 2020 it was the country’s most watched network. But using hate to explain the news is a dangerous business plan when shared crises demand Americans’ empathy, negotiation and compromise.

Fox’s talk of hate undermines democratic values like tolerance and reduces Americans’ trust of their fellow citizens.

This fraying of social ties helps explain America’s failures in managing the pandemic – and bodes badly for its handling of what seems likely to be a chaotic, divisive presidential election. In pitting its viewers against the rest of the country, Fox News works against potential solutions to the  very crises it covers.

https://theconversation.com/fox-news-uses-the-word-hate-much-more-than-msnbc-or-cnn-145983

Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared. Further, Fox News would be rated a Questionable source based on numerous failed fact checks by hosts and pundits

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

Fox News Channel Scorecard

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/fox-news-channel/

The New Normal Looks to be Unpleasant

Analysis of election results so far is painting a picture of a deeply divided people who will remain deeply divided for years. The division seems to be mostly a combination of (i) a persistent rural-urban divide, and (ii) a probably persistent Trump who may not go away if the loses the 2020 election. Both the New York Times and Washington Post are drawing similar conclusions. WaPo writes:

When Donald Trump narrowly won Wisconsin in 2016 to clinch the presidency, he carried 23 counties that had previously voted for President Barack Obama. But when Joe Biden was projected on Wednesday to put Wisconsin back in the Democratic column, he was on track to pry back just two of them: Door and Sauk.

Rather than flipping more Obama-Trump counties, Biden instead exceeded previous Democratic win margins in Wisconsin’s two biggest cities, Milwaukee and Madison.

That pattern extended to Michigan and other battleground states, with Biden building upon Democrats’ dominance in urban and suburban jurisdictions but Trump leaving most of exurban and rural America awash in red.

The NYT writes:

If President Trump loses his bid for re-election, as looked increasingly likely on Wednesday, it would be the first defeat of an incumbent president in 28 years. But one thing seemed certain: Win or lose, he will not go quietly away.

At the very least, he has 76 days left in office to use his power as he sees fit and to seek revenge on some of his perceived adversaries. Angry at a defeat, he may fire or sideline a variety of senior officials who failed to carry out his wishes as he saw it, including Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director, and Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the government’s top infectious diseases specialist in the middle of a pandemic.

And if he is forced to vacate the White House on Jan. 20, Mr. Trump is likely to prove more resilient than expected and almost surely will remain a powerful and disruptive force in American life. He received at least 68 million votes, or five million more than he did in 2016, and commanded about 48 percent of the popular vote, meaning he retained the support of nearly half of the public despite four years of scandal, setbacks, impeachment and the brutal coronavirus outbreak that has killed more than 233,000 Americans. (emphasis added)  

“If anything is clear from the election results, it is that the president has a huge following, and he doesn’t intend to exit the stage anytime soon,” said former Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, one of the few Republican officeholders to break with Mr. Trump over the past four years.

At this point, it is time to be deeply concerned about the future of democracy, voting rights, civil rights, the rule of law and a long-term rise of radical right propaganda-driven ideology and an accompanying tide of corruption and plutocratic anti-government authoritarianism. America is now firmly settled into a decades-long marathon struggle for social influence and political power.

Two main messages

If I were in control of anti-radical right messaging, I would get experts together and devise a messaging strategy to counter and attack the decades of radical right propaganda, lies and emotional manipulation. Two key messages seem to rise to as the top messaging priorities to deal with. It is now clear that radical right propaganda has successfully but falsely (i) painted democrats as evil tyrant-socialists, deeply corrupt and sometimes crackpot nonsense such as cannibalistic pedophiles, and (ii) created beliefs that compromise is evil or treason, and regulation is tyrannical socialism, while deregulation increases personal freedom. 

Other successful results of radical right propaganda include, but are not limited to, significantly decreased social trust in democracy, democratic institutions, political opposition, elections, ethics, truth, experts, science, the rule of law and the free press. None of that bodes well for democracy or honest, competent governance. The right has come to understand and ruthlessly exploit the means available in the constitution and regional or state differences to divide and polarize Americans. Such means of social division include not just ruthless, effective dark free speech, they include the electoral college and differences inherent in the modern urban-rural divide. Exploiting all of that allows radial authoritarian candidates to ignore sections of the electorate and states that are inclined to support more moderate candidates. 

If the foregoing is a reasonably accurate assessment of the situation, two key false radical right authoritarian messages that urgently need to be countered and debunked are (1) regulation = socialism, and (2) deregulation = more personal freedom. Obviously, opinions will differ on what is most important, but these two usually false beliefs seem to be fairly common among republicans and some or most independents.

The two points to be made are simple. First, regulation of capitalism is not socialism. Second, when private sector interests are deregulated, power does not flow from government to the people, it flows from government to the deregulated interests. Some benefit may or may not flow to some or most affected people. When private commercial interests gain power form deregulation, average people can often be exploited more effectively.[1]

But, if those two messages are not the top two, what are? It is clear that from here on out, we are in a ferocious messaging war. The immoral radical right will continue to rely on dark free speech to advance anti-consumer and anti-democratic authoritarianism. What tactics should the opposition use, dark free speech or honest free speech?

Footnote: 

1. For example, by deregulating regulated for profit colleges after they committed fraud against thousands of students, Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos make it easier for fraud to reappear. Specifically, DeVos made it harder for defrauded students to recover their money. One site commented: "But on Friday DeVos capped off a two-year effort by issuing her own rule, which scales back loan forgiveness opportunities for student borrowers. The new regulations significantly raise the bar for student borrowers seeking debt forgiveness based on claims they were defrauded by their colleges. They add a new three-year time limit for those borrowers to file claims, and each case will be considered individually, even if there is evidence of widespread misconduct at an institution. Borrowers will also be asked to demonstrate they suffered financial harm from their college’s misconduct and that the college made deceptive statements with “knowledge of its false, misleading, or deceptive nature.”" (emphasis added)

Just ask yourself: How can a student prove that the college made deceptive statements with knowledge of its false, misleading, or deceptive nature? Students have to go to court to get the power to subpoena documents that might show knowledge of false, misleading, or deceptive acts, but if the college routinely shreds all of its incriminating evidence, there will be no document evidence to be found and people from the college who testify will lie through their teeth and deny all wrongdoing as such defendants always do.

That shaft the consumer effect is how radical right deregulation works because it is intended to work that way. Deregulation in the public interest reduces needless complexity or limits, but deregulation in the special interest tends to damage the public interest. That is a point that most rank and file republicans simply do not understand and/or will not accept if told about it. 

WILL WE BE FOOLED AGAIN?

 We'll be fighting in the streets

With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again, no, no

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

Yeah

There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again, no, no

Yeah
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Songwriters: Peter Townshend - THE WHO 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un5oEdfrm_A

The Results Start to Come In

A real time discussion is warranted. 

Joe won Delaware. Guess it's over.

Or is that conclusion premature?

What Some More Trump Supporters Think

Rempel’s burned equipment in the field

The New York Times wrote this about a farmer in Nebraska, Johnathan Rempel, who put Trump flags on his farm equipment. Some moron came along and burned his equipment down. The NYT writes:

“In Mr. Rempel’s farming community of Henderson and in the countryside that makes up much of the majority Republican state of Nebraska, people say that President Trump represents their deep convictions. And those strongly held beliefs exist in a good versus evil framework in which many see issues like abortion, immigration and what is to them the trade-exploiting, virus-spreading nation of China in the starkest of terms.

“The forgotten men and women of our country,” he promised back then, “will be forgotten no longer.”

The president’s supporters in places like rural Nebraska say they feel remembered. To them, these four years have brought a sense of belonging in a country led by someone who sticks up for, and understands, their most cherished beliefs. To the more than 50 percent of Americans who disapprove of the president, Mr. Trump can represent division and dishonesty. In Henderson, and many places like it, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s campaign pitch that he is fighting for the soul of the nation simply doesn’t resonate. People here would view its soul as being in jeopardy if he triumphed.

“I said, ‘No, that’s not possible,’” Mr. Rempel, a fourth-generation farmer, recalled, describing his disbelief that his equipment had been destroyed and his corn harvest put in jeopardy. Mr. Rempel won’t speculate on a motive for what he believes was arson; the State Fire Marshal has said only that it is investigating the incident.

“Whenever you see something on fire that was lit on purpose, or whenever you see a business destroyed, whenever you see somebody making a point through violence, it’s evil,” Mr. Rempel said. “And evil destroys.”

“I like what he stands for. He’s against abortion. He’s against evil. He’s against higher taxes,” said Pat Goossen, who owns The Petal Pusher, a flower shop on Henderson’s Main Street. “He shares my values. I don’t want higher taxes. I don’t want our jobs going out.”

Though the president has refused to denounce white supremacy, Ms. Goossen, who is white, like most of her neighbors in Henderson, said she couldn’t believe that the president was being tied to violent outbursts at rallies against racial injustice.

“Do you honestly think he caused the burning and the riots? Are you out of your ever-loving mind? He did not,” she said. “He was a victim of this just like the rest of us.”

Mr. Rempel enjoys the lonely feeling of being on the farm, where he can zone out in the cab of his combine or behind the wheel of his pickup, bouncing down gravel roads. “I love being in flyover country. I love it. I embrace it,” Mr. Rempel said, walking through his rows of corn and fretting over every bent stalk. “I lived in Omaha. Nobody knew who you were. You could do whatever you wanted. You could go steal a car and run into a post and run away and nobody cares.” Rural life, he said, offers accountability among people who share a set of values. Being around parents, grandparents, those “who take pride in you,” is grounding. It’s something he thinks is lost in big cities.

‘Everybody wants to put people in a box so we can decide right away if we hate you. You’re a Trump supporter! You’re a Biden supporter! We hate you!’ he said. ‘We need to quit that as a country. You are who you are, and I am who I am, and I can love you even if I don’t agree with you.’” (emphasis added)

What can one say in the face of that? Politics has been weaponized by moralizing it into good vs. evil. The articulation of evil in Biden and the political opposition is fuzzy at best. Once again, this looks like another example of radical right political poison doing it’s intended job in the minds of decent people. Rempel sees rural life as a source of accountability among people who share a set of values. That implies that people in urban areas are bad or evil. Is that what rural people really believe about people in cities? Are people who work their butts off in cities and raise their families as best they can just evil slackers and freeloaders who could not care less about being good, honest or hard-working?

How can Remple love people in urban areas or one who support Biden if he sees this in terms of good vs. evil?[1] I don’t think he can.

Footnote: 

1. That is why I try hard not to slap the evil label on average people. I criticize lies, deceit, irrational emotional manipulation as immoral or, if malice is there, evil, but not most people. Trump is an exception. He is evil and dripping with malice.

Trump’s Immoral Legacy of Distrust

Flags at the D.C. Armory grounds in Washington representing those who have died of the coronavirus in the United States. The lasting effect of Mr. Trump’s relationship with the truth may be most evident in terms of the pandemic.

The New York Times writes about the president's legacy as one of significantly eroding public distrust in facts, the legitimacy of political opposition and democracy itself. Those have been among the top Trump goals from day one. Sadly, he succeeded. The NYT writes:

“Born amid made-up crowd size claims and “alternative facts,” the Trump presidency has been a factory of falsehood from the start, churning out distortions, conspiracy theories and brazen lies at an assembly-line pace that has challenged fact-checkers and defied historical analogy. 

But now, with the election two days away, the consequences of four years of fabulism are coming into focus as President Trump argues that the vote itself is inherently “rigged,” tearing at the credibility of the system. Should the contest go into extra innings through legal challenges after Tuesday, it may leave a public with little faith in the outcome — and in its own democracy.

During his final weekend of campaign rallies, Mr. Trump continued to sow doubt about the validity of the election, making clear that he would deem any outcome other than victory for him to be corrupt. At a rally in Philadelphia, which has a sizable nonwhite population and a Democratic-led government, he asserted that the city would falsify the results. “Are they going to mysteriously find more ballots” after polls close, he asked. “Strange things have been known to happen, especially in Philadelphia.”

The nightmarish scenario of widespread doubt and denial of the legitimacy of the election would cap a period in American history when truth itself has seemed at stake under a president who has strayed so far from the normal bounds that he creates what allies call his own reality. Even if the election ends with a clear victory or defeat for Mr. Trump, scholars and players alike say the very concept of public trust in an established set of facts necessary for the operation of a democratic society has eroded during his tenure with potentially long-term ramifications.  

‘You can mitigate the damage, but you can’t bring it back to 100 percent the way it was before,’ said Lee McIntyre, the author of “Post-Truth” and a philosopher at Boston University. ‘And I think that’s going to be Trump’s legacy. I think there’s going to be lingering damage to the processes by which we vet truths for decades. People are going to be saying, ‘Oh, that’s fake news.’ The confusion between skepticism and denialism, the idea that if you don’t want to believe something, you don’t have to believe it — that’s really damaging, and that’s going to last.’”

That assessment is basically correct. In my experience, most of the president’s supporters are mostly closed to accepting facts, true truths and/or sound reasoning. In particular, true truths and sound reasoning are often rejected out of hand. Unfortunately, most of his supporters cannot see this and deny it when the facts and argument is presented. 

Maybe his worst legacy boils down to this: Tribal loyalty and reality talk, and everything and everyone else walks. Tribal reality can be true, false, mixed or ambiguous, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is loyalty. The radical right has been working for decades to get the typical conservative mind to this point. They surely are not going to give up on what has finally succeeded for them. Radical right elites are on the cusp of realizing their decades-long vision of a corrupt, authoritarian, white America and culture. That vision is built mostly on lies and deceit, and thus it is built mostly on immorality.

As the NYT comments, “the very idea of truth is increasingly a fungible commodity in a political environment that seems to reward the loudest voices, not the most honest.”