Taking Down Fox News

Courtesy of Rae Whitlock/Wikimedia Commons

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


After Glenn Beck blamed Obama for harboring a “deep-seated hatred for white people” during a morning chat on Fox and Friends more than a year ago, ColorofChange.org‘s director James Rucker decided that enough was enough. “Beck’s comments about the president perfectly captured what has been going on at the network for a long time,” Rucker told reporter Alexander Zaitchik, who wrote about the incident in our July/August issue this year. Color of Change is an online civil rights group focused on strengthening the political voices of people of color. Under Rucker’s direction, it successfully urged several advertisers, including Best Buy, Wal-Mart, and RadioShack, to pull their ads from Beck’s show. But Rucker didn’t exactly get the outcome he was hoping for. Fox News did nothing to reign Beck in: instead, he’s been allowed to blather on with few boundaries ever since. “Nothing has essentially changed,” says Rucker. So Color of Change has launched an even larger offensive: convincing local businesses to silence Fox News.

Rucker had been bothered by catching glimpses of figures like Beck on television in the gym or restaurants. True Fox devotees, who see the world through that lens, should be able to watch Fox in their own homes, says Rucker. “But no one else should be subject to that.” The Turn Off Fox campaign, which launches today, wants to de-legitimize Fox in public places. The campaign provides anyone with a kit, including instructions on how to persuade store owners to become “Fox-free” and a flyer detailing why.

“Fox’s race-baiting and fear mongering is more than just deceptive and offensive,” reads the campaign literature. “It’s bad for the country, it’s dangerous, and it can result in violence.” In a letter asking for signatures, Turn Off Fox makes a case for how Fox’s divisive reporting has sparked recent acts of violence. For example, when a man open fired at highway cops on an Oakland freeway in July, he told them that he wanted to start a revolution, with planned bloodshed at the Tides Foundation in San Francisco. Tides is a little-known non-profit, argues Turn Off Fox, that Glenn Beck chose to demonize on his show. A report by Media Matters suggests that the trigger-happy man could have drawn inspiration from Beck’s proselytizing, and the shooter’s mother admitted that her son “watched the news on television and was upset by ‘the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items.”

But will an attempt to shut down Fox backfire? When Beck’s advertisers pulled ads from his show, Beck urged his viewers to support him. “Even as advertisers fled, Beck was clocking record audience members,” reports Zaitchik. But Rucker argues that the middle-of-the-road viewers will choose to distance themselves from Fox News, while the devotees “will show themselves for who they really are.”

And what about the First Amendment in all of this? Turn Off Fox is not suggesting that Fox News shouldn’t be able to broadcast what they want, nor does it want the government to shut down the channel. But claiming to be a news organization and not meeting the standards of news, argues Rucker, is reason enough for it to be shut off from broadcasting in public places. As the campaign letter explains: “The issue is whether businesses and public places want to be a conduit for Fox’s consistently divisive rhetoric, race-baiting and distortions of the truth.” The campaign targets captive audience situations, where viewers have little to no choice what they are watching (think airplanes, restaurants, and lobbies). As Marty Essen, founder of an almost-identical campaign called Turn Off Fox News, writes in a Missoulian article: “If changing the channel from Fox News is censorship, then the reverse is also true—tuning in Fox News censors all other channels!”

From the desk of Mother Jones CEO, Monika Bauerlein...

Newsrooms can be funded in many ways. One of the most controversial (and volatile) ways is by a for-profit corporation or a billionaire owner. We see it across the headlines on a weekly basis: the claw backs in public media, the gutting of The Washington Post, the bending over backwards to appeal to Trump and his allies.

But not here.

When Mother Jones first started publishing 50 years ago, our founders made a critical decision: to be a reader-supported nonprofit. They knew that no corporate owner would be interested in a muckraking newsroom; they also knew that no muckraking newsroom would be interested in following the agenda of a corporate owner.

And so, we’ve been reader-funded for half a century. We rely on contributions from our readers—readers like you—whether it’s $50, or $15 a month, or whatever fits your budget. People give what they can, and every donation makes a difference for our newsroom, which has grown tremendously—in size and reach and renown—since its inception in 1976.

You may be wondering: What does it take to publish an investigation? And what does my donation actually fund? The answers are one and the same: It takes people, resources, and time. And that’s what your donation funds directly.

Every donation Mother Jones receives from readers fortifies our newsroom, whether we’re covering underreported scandals out of Washington, DC, or the most important news of the day. And right now, each donation will be doubled because of our $50,000 match. So when you make a donation—$5, $50, any amount—it’ll go twice as far.

Your support keeps us going. If you’re able, donate today.

Thanks for reading.

—Monika

From the desk of Mother Jones CEO, Monika Bauerlein...

Newsrooms can be funded in many ways. One of the most controversial (and volatile) ways is by a for-profit corporation or a billionaire owner. We see it across the headlines on a weekly basis: the claw backs in public media, the gutting of The Washington Post, the bending over backwards to appeal to Trump and his allies.

But not here.

When Mother Jones first started publishing 50 years ago, our founders made a critical decision: to be a reader-supported nonprofit. They knew that no corporate owner would be interested in a muckraking newsroom; they also knew that no muckraking newsroom would be interested in following the agenda of a corporate owner.

And so, we’ve been reader-funded for half a century. We rely on contributions from our readers—readers like you—whether it’s $50, or $15 a month, or whatever fits your budget. People give what they can, and every donation makes a difference for our newsroom, which has grown tremendously—in size and reach and renown—since its inception in 1976.

You may be wondering: What does it take to publish an investigation? And what does my donation actually fund? The answers are one and the same: It takes people, resources, and time. And that’s what your donation funds directly.

Every donation Mother Jones receives from readers fortifies our newsroom, whether we’re covering underreported scandals out of Washington, DC, or the most important news of the day. And right now, each donation will be doubled because of our $50,000 match. So when you make a donation—$5, $50, any amount—it’ll go twice as far.

Your support keeps us going. If you’re able, donate today.

Thanks for reading.

—Monika

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

INDEPENDENT. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Mother Jones has no billionaires calling the shots—just readers like you making fearless reporting possible

Donate