Writer and former New York Times columnist Anand Giridharadas is very disturbed by a certain media trend.
Before you get too excited, it’s not the trend he should be disturbed by, the one where the media are refashioning themselves as left-wing propaganda tools.
No, the one that really disturbs him is “brain-mashing as a business model,” specifically with regard to Fox News:
It’s time for this question to be front and center: Should Fox News be allowed to exist? Brain-mashing as a business model shouldn’t be legal.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) January 22, 2021
It shouldn’t be legal … says the amateur legal expert:
I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t understand why you’re not allowed to manufacture bucatini that doesn’t have a certain threshold of iron in it but you can broadcast brain-mashing falsehoods and goad people toward terrorism.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) January 22, 2021
When he starts talking about Fox News goading people toward terrorism, you know you’re in for something special.
If the Fairness Doctrine, applying to broadcast, was constitutional, why would a new Fairness Doctrine, applying more broadly, be a violation of that same Constitution?
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) January 22, 2021
Twelve percent of Americans supported the terrorist insurrection on the Capitol. After the fact. You cannot pin this only on leaders. This has been institutionalized incitement in which the media played a giant role, and democracy is endangered by it.https://t.co/P0MdGOh71l
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) January 22, 2021
Are there huge questions of a slippery slope? Of course. Could this regulation be abused? Of course. These are the hard things we'd have to figure out. But none of that means, to me, that a business model of incitement and falsehood is absolutely protected.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) January 22, 2021
Slippery slopes? Abuse? All worth it if it silences Fox News.
And in the interim, I'd love to hear more of the bottom-up ways people suggest.
The advertiser pressure has worked. I've heard talk of cable subscribers demanding incitement-free packages.
What are the other mechanisms you see?
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) January 22, 2021
Maybe in the interim, Anand should stop looking for “mechanisms” to shut down outlets he doesn’t like and start thinking about why his ideas are hot garbage and antithetical to the First Amendment.
That’s why, Anand. Glad I could help you out.https://t.co/8PALjDXSGa
— Jim Geraghty (@jimgeraghty) January 22, 2021
Anand is not only not a lawyer, but he’s also not a good journalist.
You were so close to getting it, only to turn back because to address the issue would require self-examination. https://t.co/lgBPvMi0Rm
— Inez Stepman ⚪️?⚪️ (@InezFeltscher) January 22, 2021
#selfawareness https://t.co/LnTNrjZgMX
— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) January 22, 2021
If Anand were capable of self-awareness, he’d spend the next week using his Twitter account to shame himself for advocating fascism.
Why not ban disagreements while you’re at it? Maybe we can make thinking wrong things illegal, too. We can put one guy in charge and let him decide. We can call it fascism. https://t.co/9sLMCgKRRW
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) January 22, 2021
I shouldn't be surprised you're proudly proclaiming your affinity for fascism
— CanLen ? (@CandiceLen) January 22, 2021
With socialists, the inner despot comes out very quickly. https://t.co/XynyLGy058
— Nathan "Two Sheds" Wurtzel (@NathanWurtzel) January 22, 2021
Totalitarians always show their true colors. ALWAYS. https://t.co/fJyaLW9Gg7
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) January 22, 2021
Always.
Meanwhile:
If brain-mashing isn’t to be allowed as a business model, Anand is gonna struggle financially. https://t.co/qkmR3Xo3Zh
— Luke Thompson (@ltthompso) January 22, 2021
True story.
