Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "Fox Host Brutally Calls Out REPUBLICAN Governor!" video.

  1. Honest answer, David, (and I apologise for being complicated about this) is . . . it depends. For what it’s worth, I would need to know, does Wallace hold shares in Fox (as many of their anchors do) and/or, is he a thorn is their flesh that they tolerate because they have to, for whatever reason? If that were the case, it would be better if he left, so that Fox would become the all out, undiluted equivalent of Lord Haw Haw’s Germany Calling show, during WWII; the unmitigated, inexcusable disgrace to journalism that they are. But, if they want to use him, for the purposes you described, to provide the thin veil of, “balance,” to their programming, then he should stay, because he’s quite good at what he does, and he appears to have some seniority within the network. I have seen Wallace, for example, on more than one occasion, in discussion with the Fox & Fiends panel (during a handover, it appeared, rather than as a guest) and he has verbally crushed their narratives over some controversy or other, regarding trump. He appears to be knowledgeable enough to do that, but more importantly, he appears to have the seniority (or, perhaps it’s just respect of his colleagues?) to not only correct them forcefully, but then they don’t argue against him. A little, “face saving,” attempts at trying to, “compromise,” occurs, but Wallace never seems to tolerate that either, and he simply puts their nonsense to shame, and they daren’t gain say him. So, if they would only replace him with someone else, he should stay, rather than take the chance that his replacement is not as good as Wallace at stopping the Propaganda in his earshot while on TV. In fact, Fox might well choose someone who’s not so good at debate, carries less authority, both journalistically and within the Fox organisation, and is generally less competent at challenging their narratives? Breaking the arguments of the left is good Propaganda too, right? But, if they would be happier if he left, because they want to replace him with someone who’s totally on board with the far right, anti-democratic narrative, it would be so much better if Wallace left and left them to it. Particularly if he was to be snapped up by CNN? Or, some other rival network, with a reputation for genuinely, “fair and balanced,” journalism? It is far easier to deal with an enemy, when that enemy has no redeeming features. I don’t speak in terms of counter-narratives, or counter-propaganda purposes, either. But, in terms of simplifying the fight. If Fox were to one day be brought down completely, perhaps in the wake of a raft of sedition scandals after the death of Rupert Murdoch (not necessarily such a far fetched idea?) I would hate to see Wallace’s life ruined by that? But, it’s also about the hypocrisy of the station that claims, “balance,” when what it’s really doing is keeping Wallace as a kind of insurance policy that might keep their business model alive, should they be exposed and prosecuted, or just have their reputations irreparably damaged. It’s a false dichotomy that they cover, “both sides,” of a topic at all, when one is pure lies and Seditious poison that literally costs American lives! They have ONE MAN, doing a little analysis and a few slightly challenging interviews, set against a background of white entitlement, false narratives, and pro-Fascist propaganda! We’re so jaded with them, that we often seem to forget that this stuff comes mostly out of Russia, and from other enemy states! Their JOB is to DIVIDE America! To bring the country down! They are but a filter for Putin’s narratives, that they make palatable to American WASP tastes. Within living memory, we literally took the trouble to hunt down, try and execute traitors who spread seditious propaganda! Now, we allow them to collect their shares in the company and broadcast their, “Make America Divided Again,” filth, on American soil! So, it would be better for America if their inhumanity was undiluted and clear, so America could see them for what they are. But, if they would simply replace him with some hack, hired to see the, “other side,” of the debates, but not do such a good job of it, and not see what they were being exploited for, that would only make matters worse. If you read any of this, David, thank you for your patience. I hope I have persuaded you? ✌️
    1