{"id":57505,"date":"2018-01-28T17:06:44","date_gmt":"2018-01-28T17:06:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=57505"},"modified":"2018-01-28T17:06:44","modified_gmt":"2018-01-28T17:06:44","slug":"fox-faux-and-two-mirrors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=57505","title":{"rendered":"Fox \/ Faux and two mirrors"},"content":{"rendered":"

[ by Charles Cameron<\/strong> — still pondering how much of “Trump” is chaff, intended to deflect attention from his serious intention ]
\n.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

**<\/p>\n

My source for the main thrust of this post:<\/p>\n

Fox News hosts ramp up \u2018deep state\u2019 conspiracies<\/a>
\nAs the network escalates its attacks on the FBI, mainstream conservatives say it is endangering U.S. institutions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

**<\/p>\n

Digression:<\/p>\n

There are mirrors all over the place, and smoke, too. Harvey Weinstein<\/strong>, Democrat and friend of Hillary<\/strong>; Steve Wynn<\/strong>, Republican finance chair and Vegas mogul: both were major fundraisers for their respective parties, both have been accused of sexual malfeasance.<\/p>\n

If you’re a Republican and castigated Weinstein, demandung his cntributions be returned, are you now castigating Wynn, and demanding your own party returm the funds he raised? And if you’re a Democrat, and contrarywise in any way played doen the Weinstein affair, are you likewise playing down the Wynn matter?<\/p>\n

Or is party politics making a difference?<\/p>\n

The principle here should be, surely, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

**<\/p>\n

Back to the deep state and its mirrors<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Hannity\u2019s coverage was just part of a wider trend, observers say. For the past week, Fox News opinion hosts have seized on claims by some Republican lawmakers about a \u201csecret society\u201d at the FBI and \u201cdeep state actors\u201d to fashion unproven narratives designed to protect Trump and delegitimize Mueller.<\/p>\n

On Wednesday night, Hannity told viewers, \u201cThe constitutional violations are severe and historically unprecedented in this country. You have deep state actors using and abusing the powerful tools of intelligence we give them to protect this country.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

**<\/p>\n

One mirror sees a parallel with sixties left radicals, the Weathermen<\/strong> — <\/p>\n

Stuart Stevens, the Republican who served as chief strategist for Mitt Romney\u2019s 2012 campaign, had a similar view.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn the 1960s, some rich white radicals attacked the justice system, ranted about government conspiracies and called for violent opposition,\u201d he wrote in an email. \u201cThey called themselves Weathermen. Now the same is happening, and they call themselves conservative commentators. But it\u2019s equally nutty.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

— nota bene<\/strong>, the Weathermen used violence, while thus far, the Republican conspiracists have confined themselves to virulent rhetoric.<\/p>\n

**<\/p>\n

Jennifer Rubin<\/strong> holds another mirror up to Republican conspiracists — Russian propaganda:<\/p>\n

Jennifer Rubin, a conservative columnist at The Washington Post, noted to POLITICO that the points being made on shows like “Hannity” and “Fox & Friends” echo those being reportedly pushed by Russian bots on social media.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen they turn on a dime and begin adopting the same position as Russian bots and start attacking the FBI, we\u2019ve gone to a whole new level of crazy,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s almost like Fox has become the RT, the Russia Today, for the administration and the Kremlin,\u201d she added.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Stevens finds a parallel in the American past, and a leftist group. Rubin finds a contemporary parallel in the activities of our principal foreign enemy.<\/p>\n

**<\/p>\n

Bill Kristol<\/strong> doesn’t offer a mirror, but his comments are worth noting:<\/p>\n

In a Thursday interview on CNBC, Bill Kristol, the Weekly Standard editor who was a Fox News analyst from 2002 to 2012, alleged that the channel has become increasingly conspiratorial over the past several years, saying, “Seventy-five percent of it seems to be birther-like coverage of different issues.”<\/p>\n

Rubin said, though, that the most recent commentary is beyond anything that\u2019s aired on the network in the past.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe substance of what they\u2019re saying and the conspiracy theories that are being floated are so much weirder and so much less credible than simply taking a suspicious view of the events leading up to Benghazi or questioning the motives of President Obama. There was once upon a time some factual basis for what they were looking at \u2014 some may have been drawing unreasonable conclusions and some may have been exaggerating, but here they appear to be making stuff up from whole cloth, so I do think it\u2019s worse.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

If the Fox-faux folk heard these critiques from their Democratic rivals, they might well dismiss them out of hand. But they come from erstwhile highly respected people on their own “side” — fellow Republicans.<\/p>\n

**<\/p>\n

Humor on your way out the door:<\/p>\n