"Think globally - act locally." Yet another well-meaning philosophy which has been usurped and perverted by the mainstream, and turned into little more than a hackneyed phrase used to peddle half-liters of designer mineral water, or the latest painfully trendy clothing. This commodification of a decent and altruistic belief renders it as impotent as a Fortune 500 CEO without his viagra.

Still, there is something to the base principle in that statement which maintains its integrity, even in the face of marketing destruction. The idea that positive actions at a local level can influence events on a larger, even global scale has some merit. In Chaos theory (an offshoot of physics and mathematics) there is a theorem known as the Butterfly Principle. As a gross over-generalization, the fundamentals of the Butterfly Principle state that the fluttering of a butterfly's wings produce minute eddies and interference in the immediately surrounding atmosphere, which in turn affects localized prevailing atmospheric patterns, which in turn continue to escalate until there is a massive hurricane which rips through the shanty-towns and trailer parks of the Northern Florida coastal areas, resulting in tremendous loss of life and the displacement of thousands of toothless rednecks and PWT. The difference is that while the murderous butterfly acts to destroy life on a grand scale (perhaps even to the extent of mass extinction and eventual Armageddon), the essentially leftist belief of "Think Globally, Act Locally" is designed, at least initially, to be a benefit to humanity and the greater earthly ecosystem.

Oh, I should warn the three of you reading this that I had to take a massive dose of pseudo-ephedrine this morning to combat some particularly nasty allergies, so my coherence is slowly but surely going to dwindle until I will likely be typing mis-matched nursery rhymes and rambling on some far fetched leftist diatribe. But bear with me.

Where was I? Ah yes, acting locally. Anyway, it is the altruistic angle that I am sure the hosts of this esteemed write off had in mind when they slapped it together. Actually, their idea was for a "review" of some sort of local service. What kind of service I can only guess, but I assume they were hoping for things like veterinarians, plumbers, carpet cleaners and dentists - who to avoid and who to patronize. Things like that. But man, it is pretty hard to stifle the yawns when faced with the prospect of reading fifteen or so essays on how great the local mattress salesmen was. So, enter the Monkey to skate along the outer edge of the rules (Ya gotta be true t'yer nature, Hi).

See, I was thinking, instead of boring you, and more importantly, myself, with yet another take on the minutiae of how well (or poorly) the pimply-faced teenager did working the cash register at the local Scarf & Blow, I could sorta play with the original idea and scrumble it up a bit to look at how global actions can affect local thinking. To that end, I've decided to take a close look at the Fox News Channel and its actions in the last three weeks.

In the most benign of times the power of the press is phenomenal. In today's society it is rare when an individual's opinion on any given topic is not based, at least partially and at least subconsciously, on what they heard, read, or saw in one form of the press or other. Sports fans bickering over whether Barry Bonds is more or less contrary an individual than Albert Belle are basing their opinions and arguments to a large degree on the reports of sports journalists and talk-show hosts. After all, how many fat bastards sitting in a bar have ever had the chance to interact with either Bonds or Belle for any length of time? And when it comes to politics, the influence of the press is even greater. Not convinced? Take the example of Gary Condit. An intern of his disappeared several months ago, and still has not been found. The initial police investigation discovered that there may have been an illicit tryst between Rep. Condit and the intern, but that there was nothing to link the Congressman to her disappearance. Yet the swarm of the press investigating this alleged affair ended up forming an overwhelmingly negative public opinion about Rep. Condit. The fact that he was not a suspect in the intern's disappearance notwithstanding, he was now a bad guy - because the press painted him as such. When revelations of Newt Gingrich's affairs were released the press didn't swarm with nearly as much energy, and as a result there was no significant public opinion shaped as a result.

But I digress. My point is that even in times of plenty, what the press - especially the television news - reports holds great influence over the American people. As a group we tend to automatically defer to authority, and a talking head pontificating to us from the great one-eyed-god holds a lot of authority. So it isn't tough to imagine the huge power the press carries in times of emergency or danger. The problem, however, is that journalism, for all its claims of objectivity, is biased. In the best case this bias is minimal, and the reporters can hold some control over it. At the very least, the news program or the newspaper can balance any bias by running a follow-up presenting a story from a different perspective, with equal degrees of bias. However, in the wake of the recent terrorist attacks, all of the news providers - print, radio, and television - have colored their reporting in varying degrees of red, white and blue. Even the supposed grand wizard of the left, Dan Rather, has taken to sentimental speech, expressions of national pride, and displaying the flag as a pin on his lapel. Stories highlighting the bravery of the rescuers, and the resilience of the American people have been prominently featured, and have served as a invaluable tool in helping the nation deal with the event. However, there is a difference in presenting positive news under the umbrella of pride, and using current events as a means to actively promote jingoistic propaganda.

Where CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. use symbolism and national pride to assist in both reassuring the public and fostering the return to a semblance of normal American life, the Fox News Channel uses the flag to whip xenophobic hysteria while fostering national paranoia, going so far as to actively question the loyalty and patriotism of anyone with the audacity to hold even the slightest dissenting political viewpoint.

Now the fact that Fox News is little more than a shameless propaganda arm of the conservative thought is certainly nothing new. After all, any news channel that has to keep reminding its viewers that it is "Fair and Balanced" is obviously neither. However, there comes a point where even a news channel with an obvious political slant crosses a line between even semi-legitimate journalism and blatant propaganda. After the events of September 11, Fox News has not only crossed that line, it has obliterated it.

Examples of the sort of jingoistic hyperbole being broadcast on Fox are too numerous to mention. Aside from anchors (such as Brit Hume and Shepard Smith) and field reporters subtly expressing patriotic sentiment bordering on arrogant, the two most vociferous Fox News programs, Hannity & Colmes and The O'Reilly Factor have reached levels of hysteria not seen since McCarthyism.

The program Hannity & Colmes is the Fox News Channel's attempt at providing a liberal voice. Broadly modeled after the old CNN program Crossfire, the show employs co-hosts representing opposite political poles. However, where Crossfire had co-hosts of equal intellect, tenacity, and debate skills, H&C presents a weak, ill-prepared, apologetic host for the left, while the representative for the right is a pitbull who hammers mercilessly at liberal guests, and often "wins" arguments by out shouting or insulting the guests or the co-host. The goal of H&C is to ridicule left political thought under the guise of an even-handed format, but after the attacks, the aim of the show shifted from mocking liberal thought to promoting an extreme right-wing agenda. A perfect example comes in the manner in which H&C handled alleged Constitutional lawyer and unabashed extreme conservative, Ann Coulter.

Coulter, who made her bones during the Clinton years by mercilessly attacking every aspect of the Clinton administration with the ferocity of a rabid pit bull, had a recent essay rejected by, of all things, the masthead of modern conservative thought, The National Review, who found it too inflammatory for even their readers. She was featured as part of a program devoted to the epidemic of speech censorship sweeping the nation in the wake of the terrorist bombing, along with other "victims" of recent censuring such as Jerry "Osama bin" Falwell, and Politically incorrect host, Bill Maher. However, in the trademarked bias of Fox, the cases of both Osama bin Falwell and Ms. Coulter were used as examples of censorship due to unreasonable PC (read: left) standards, while the case of Bill Maher was cited as an example of the need for tolerance for even dangerous, hurtful speech. While on the show, Ms. Coulter seemed genuinely incredulous that anyone would find her opinions offensive. After all, she had only written that the US should embark on its own jihad by invading anti-American countries, killing their leaders, and converting the survivors to Christianity; that any new security measures not apply to people like her (read: white female) because there hadn't been any recent "hijackings by Connecticut WASP girls," but that security should instead focus on "swarthy males"; that her lobbying for a "Terrorist Deportation Plan" wherein the US sends all Muslims residing here - American citizens or not - back to the country of their origin; and that "not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims - at least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America that leaves 7,000 people dead in under two hours" should draw criticism. More amazing than her surprise was the fact that neither host challenged her on these statements or raised any concern over the fact that these could be made by a "Constitutional Lawyer" of all people. Thus H&C sent the message that offense at derogatory or racist speech concerning liberals, atheists, homosexuals, abortionists, Arabs and others is just PC hysteria, thereby sanctioning the use of terminology such as "raghead" or worse.

Then we come to the jewel of the Fox News Channel's programming: The O'Reilly Factor. The Factor, as it is known by its legions of devotees, offers its host, Bill O'Reilly, a one hour soapbox to promote his conservative opinion and mock liberal thought. That is fine, although O'Reilly's insistence that he is not biased does grow old. However, it is not fine for Mr. O'Reilly to use his airtime to accuse those who don't agree with him of treason, or of trumpeting for a new incarnation of the House Un-American Activities Council. O'Reilly's opinion on what to do with the Taliban or the terrorists is fine, but his constant portrayal of pacifists, liberals, and dissenters as traitors is not. In many recent installments of The Factor, O'Reilly has made parallels between dissent and un-American activity. He constantly ridicules opponents to his view, and poses tangential questions designed to elicit a response that is easily interpreted as being un-patriotic. In a recent installment a retired Colonel who served in the Viet Nam war (and whose name escapes me), and a Congressman (whose name also escapes me) debated about whether dissent was tantamount to treason, and the upshot of the evening was that O'Reilly conceded that simply disagreeing with the government was not treason, but that acting on that disagreement - even to the point of assembling for a protest was at the very least un-American, often bordering on treasonous. The message here is simple - anyone disagreeing with American policy or the direction the government is taking is a subversive and should be treated as such.

Now these global thoughts have a direct effect on local actions. Frenzied and unbalanced people who imbibe this sort of hate have gone out and assaulted innocent people. The Newspaper contains countless reports of threats made against Muslim Americans and their places of worship, murders and assaults against innocent people because they look "Middle Eastern", suppression of speech by those who disagree with a military response, and rumors of a recall attempt of Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D - California) because she was the lone dissenting voice in giving "President" Bush authorization to use military force without a formal Congressional declaration of war. This sort of repression has reached the absurd level of questioning the patriotism of people who choose not to fly the flag from their homes or cars, and a fierce return to the "America: Love It or Leave It" attitude of My Country, Right Or Wrong.

Thus, the actions of actively advocating suspicion, derision, attrition, and coercion seen on the Fox New Channel can only serve to further fraction society into distrustful camps and violent altercations. And regardless of whether or not the intent of Fox News was to promote domestic battle on dissent, liberalism or alternative thought, their actions are irresponsible. Conservative opinion does not have to be disseminated as repression or accusatory of sedition against opposing views, and as the leading conservative presence in journalism, even the slightest editorializing has the effect of shaping opinion and action. Thus, indirectly promoting the agenda where individuals who do not drape themselves in the flag must automatically therefore be domestic enemies of the state, acts to inflame individuals on a local level to ensure that such behavior not be tolerated. When Bill O'Reilly sanctions the philosophy that anti-War protesters are, by the fact their lack of support for military action fails to adequately punish terrorists, providing aid and comfort to the enemy (and are therefore traitors), he then provides public sentiment for reprisals, both official and unofficial, against those people. And when the show Hannity & Colmes implies that people who take offense to hateful and racist speech are simply brainwashed to accept some ethereal PC agenda, they then are complicit in encouraging acts of oppressing those whom the hateful and racist speech is directed.

It seems to me that if the Fox News Channel wishes to truly be as fair and balanced as they continually claim, they would reign in their blatant editorializing and hyperbolic rhetoric, perhaps by toning down their bombast and including guests with less "extreme" points of view. At the very least, if they continue to allow this sort of programming, they should then simply admit that they are not a "fair and balanced" news station, but an editorial-content provider like either The Nation or The National Review. At least those bastions of opposing political philosophy have the integrity to admit what they are.

*-*-*-*-*
This has been my weak effort into Deaser26's and Tibullus' Local Services Write Off. I apologize for bringing anyone down during this, and wish it to be known that the opinions expressed here are solely those of the Fez Monkey. Now that you've been sufficiently depressed, I suggest you read any of the other entries to help cleanse yourself. Below is a list of participants, you can either visit their home pages directly, or just stop by the WO web site at: www.dreamwater.org/deaser26/local_services_write_off.htm

Participants:
adjensen
azirish
bryan_carey
deaser26 - Co-Host
diversity646
firemanfd12
hotcandy
jeff_wilder78
joydrop26
imokliel
k1j2g3
kcfoxy
lambolucifer
lattechick
lfakh
madtheory
mattels
niccy6
pedantic
purplewiz
shurie
thom413
tibullus - Co-Host
xeno3998


Recommended: No

Average Program Rating: TV 14 -- parents strongly cautioned