Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Very different interpretation of what was said there. Yes, he cut her off, but he followed it up with, "I want to make sure they do have something to back that up, but that's an explosive charge to make, that the other side is effectively rigging and cheating. If she does bring proof of that, of course we'll take you back. So far she has started saying right at the outset, welcoming fraud, welcoming illegal voting. Not so fast. More after this."
This was not a rebuke. This could be construed as issue framing and repetition of dog whistle language to get the audience fired up. He dropped rigging, cheating, fraud and illegal voting without stating that none of those claims were untrue, inaccurate, or lies. This is a soft propaganda technique to activate emotions and responses associated with those dog whistle terms used. No different than when a certain poster just starts asking questions. It is very transparent and not kosher. So be prepared for the opposite response you think this is going to draw, because Fox viewers are not buying anything except rigging, cheating, fraud and illegal voting is happening until it is ultimately rebuked from a trusted information source. Fox did not rebuke anything.
|
I think you are taking this a bit far.
A) this is Fox news. The fact that they even cut them off is big news. Big.
B) They are relatively new to dooing this, so adding in a "of course if he brings real and actual proof we will revisit" seems reasonable to me.
I saw it with almost all media on twitter during their horrid landscaping press conference. People showed up, they started saying junk, the media said "woah, this is junk...we are leaving...if they say anything with actual evidence...".