 It's June the 9th, 2022, it's Wednesday, excuse me, it's Thursday, Thursday it's 11 o'clock and it's time for American Issues Take Two. I'm Tim Appichella filling in for Jay Fidel, who's on assignment and with us today is our very special, special Stephanie Dahl, sorry Stephanie, help me out. At the bookstore, remember? That's right. And they used to rob the banks. Yes, today's title, believe it or not, is Fox Viewers Won't Watch January 6th hearings. In about an hour and a half, two hours, we are going to see the first opening, if you will, for the Select Committee January 6th hearings and it is going to be televised on all the major stations. I don't know who's not going to air it except for one company, one media company. They allegedly go by the name of Fox News, but we all know that news channels do exactly that. They report on the news. They report things that are important to the society, to politics, to business, even weather, they report on it, but not Fox News. Fox News is not going to air these Select Committee hearings. Gee, what a surprise. Stephanie, welcome. What's your take on this? What's your take that Fox News has blocked the January 6th Select Committee hearing? Thank you, Tim. And hello. I appreciate the question. It has been one because I've been thinking about it. And one reason is the disappointment of that to find out that a major today station actually is not running this topic when it's a historical event that is going to be listed always going forward and in textbooks and I'm a little bit disappointed. But I think it also validates the different approach to all of this information that Fox doesn't report to do. In other words, there's nothing about their work that tries to unify or develop any consensual approach or just getting everybody on the same page. They're not doing that. And I believe that that is one of the reasons we're so fractionated, fractionalized. And so that's where we are now. I find it very difficult. And I think it even just really hurts because it contributes to the demolition of our democracy. Well, I guess I keep referring to Fox News as Fox Entertainment or Fox commentary. And I don't care. It's fine if you're Fox commentary. But I think it's problematic that they keep labeling themselves as Fox News and basically pulling the wool over the viewer's eyes and reporting it as news, which it's not. And this is a classic example where this particular topic doesn't fit well with their politicized agenda. And it's not the first thing they haven't televised. I don't think they televised a lot of the impeachment hearings. If they did, they did so very sparsely reported, covered it. I'm not sure to what extent they went with the state of the union addresses that we've had before with Joe Biden. So, I mean, what are we to say about a news station, quote unquote news, that refuses to cover the news? And the second part of this question is, are the Democrats, are they missing the opportunity to seize on this moment and point out that Fox News is running away scared from this topic? I think that you've got a really good point, Tim, that that they're ignoring an opportunity. And I think that making sure that the people who are going to report on Fox News, who will be called in to talk about the showing of this topic, because I have heard some say, well, I am going to be on Fox News talking about this presentation. But CNN and the others that MSNBC and others ought to be making that point harder so that people will know it will be shown. But on the other hand, it's deplorable that they're not showing it. And to tell you the truth, I can't remember exactly who, if all of these other events have been televised by Fox News, because I have such a difficulty staying on the program, which I know our colleague, Jay, has also mentioned. I leave after a while because it's I can only watch until I hear the first lie. And he says, I never get into a minute and a half of Fox News because it doesn't take long for them to start. Something happens. So it's never an unadulterated just run it like they're going to run it. And that's okay. If they don't want to do that, run it and then do the criticism every inch, you know, after every five minutes go in and lambast it. That would be a more of informational news approach, media, a responsibility, but they're not even doing that. So I do agree that, you know, and I think that nationally it has been addressed, it has been labeled as more of an entertainment show. There are more conclusions being drawn that's more an entertainment or it's not, it's not up to the standards of the media industry as to be a an informational and a news. You know, I had Chuck Crumpton on yesterday and yesterday's show and he said it really doesn't matter what they cover, what they don't cover. It's all about control of the narrative. And to control the narrative, certainly you don't want to hear anything contrary to your narrative. And I suspect at one o'clock this afternoon in Hawaii time, we're going to start hearing things contrary to the GOP narrative. If you're, you know, if you're a senior producer at Fox News, what do you think went into the decision making process not to air a huge national event, the hearing? I think it's just as you say, they've managed to convey the notion that this wasn't a nothing and that it didn't, it didn't present near and present danger to anybody there or to the nation as a whole or to our political beliefs. And that's a real problem because they have succeeded in that and by not running it, they are only going to be continuing to make sure that they support that stance, that understanding, that belief. My friends that go traveling in other places and come back from red states where, you know, they're in homes or around places where their television's running and they're always running on Fox News. And so in order to do that, I don't think it's just the political topics that have to be on. It has to have that entertainment side of it. So in other words, I see that's one of the differences too because it's more fun to watch Fox News. They do more things. Well, Fox does appeal to a cultural leaning, if you will. And the bottom line is with that leaning becomes viewership. They do well with it. I also think that there are those who, as you just mentioned, who are dedicated, who are dedicated to Fox 100 percent of the day of day and night watching. I mean, that's what they do. So there's both a cultural attraction, also the political leanings of Fox. And that's why it's on 24-7 in their households. Do you think any of them will escape the gravity of Fox and dare turn into a CNN or a PBS or an ABC network to watch these hearings, or they're going to be satisfied not to know anything? And that helps them confirm what they want to believe? I think they're satisfied with it, Tim, unfortunately. And I think that there's a cooperation here of Fox trying to find what this base that Trump is conjured up, they want to make sure they keep it happy. So I think that they're purveying what their research tells them these people want. And that's what they get. So that's why they've had the loss, I think. Okay, we might be slow feed here on your video. So I'm going to kind of kick in here. We keep losing you a little bit, Stephanie. Oh, really? Yeah, your video feed is getting a little frozen here and there. So let me go to the next question, because I really didn't hear your answer on that last one. We had Chris Wallace as Shepard Smith. They seem to be the last two journalists on Fox. They have vacated. They've left the building. And can you think of anyone that fills their shoes? I mean, are there any journalists left at Fox that are notable and do their job as a journalist ought to? I always liked Geraldo Rivera when it started watching him so long ago, because peeking through Geraldo Rivera's comments are sometimes some rather more progressive attitudes that he wants to actually present it. But I think the others unfortunately have gone. One was another person. He had been on NPR radio and went to Fox and he stayed there a long, long time trying to push through, punch through and keep them balanced in it. But now he's gone. And then there are Mike Wallace's in that level. Those people are gone. And Bill O'Reilly, sadly, he left, but he was a little bit of a balance to some of the others that they have there. He was a little more moderate, it seems. I haven't done any study of this. These are just impressions that I've had. But no, I agree with you. I think that it's been left to its own devices, which is they've succeeded in preferring to address the desires, the preferences of the people that are in the Trump base. And remember who those people are. They're not sophisticated and they're not analysts and people that want to understand the nuances of the news. They are the people that want to have a little fun while doing that too. Yeah. You know, something just came to mind when you were speaking. And that is, remember some of these texts to Trump administration, particularly the chief of staff, Mark Meadows. And some of those texts came from Fox personnel, Fox news host. Do you think that might be a motivation that's a little too close to home? And that could be a potential motivation why they don't want to air this to see their correspondence or they're not correspondence, their talking heads involved in the hearings, their names specifically. Well, I think they're already named. They're out there in the news and hopefully, and I guess they're, I think that they are just going along with their general outline of making sure. So nothing, nothing special. Just, you know, business as usual. If it's anti-Trump or anti anything that would make the GOP look bad, then don't cover it. Pretend it never happened and talk about Benghazi. Exactly. Let's do the Benghazi again, which got nowhere. That's, to me, it's hysterical. It's not funny at all. But the fact that Hillary Clinton had to go through such an investigation when these people aren't even willing to show the actual tape of things that we have. But she went through 16 hours of interrogation, if you will. I like that term. 16 hours where half Mark Meadows and half the staff won't even show up for a subpoena. I think, and the leader of that investigation or interrogation of Hillary Clinton had promised at such a high level to be able to reveal the true facts in that tragedy. And they got nothing out of it. And Hillary Clinton sat there through all of those 16 hours and talked and talked coherently. So it truly, you know, at one level was hysterical, but actually a tremendous blob. And he's still credited with that being a success. I've heard, you know, they claim, there's a claim given to him for that interrogation. Right. And it yielded not one iota of information beyond what. Well, it revealed it was a tragedy and it was, you know, a circumstance, you know, events that took place that were badly timed and maybe some bad decisions were made and it did cause the lives of Americans. But, you know, after, after 18 months of investigation, and then the talking about it for another 24 months, you know, I guess, enough's enough. But I don't fault Fox for doing it. I fault Fox for saying they're a news station. And I guess, you know, I, you know, I've said this about 40 times on one show or another saying, let's get back to the days where the news desk was the news desk and then commentary editorial desk was just that editorial commentary and have have located literally at two separate desks and not confused viewers that your your opinion now is the news or its factual news. Right. We gotta get back to those days and I don't know how we do it. That's totally devoted to the care and feeding of the base. And that is the desperate situation of that kind of media production. And that's a big step along our way to losing the democracy. So that's what is so worrisome is that they are supported and reinforced for understanding things at the level that they already do, because that's what Fox is trying to find. What is it that will keep that audience intact and keep them on their base of ideas that satisfy them to be behind the candidate, the Republican agenda. It's really, really frightening. And, you know, so it just shows you how far along, I believe it's an indicator of how far along we already are out of the democracy. And the other thing that it's doing is it's taking advantage of people that have never been around for the major challenges that the U.S., the major global challenges that the U.S. has faced and participated in and solved to the benefit of the whole world. And none of these people were alive, many of these people weren't alive during all, you know, the World War II thing, the thirties, the depression, and even more recently, you know, the, the, they were here for the Vietnam's, but they missed that even their they're mentioning now that they've missed also the seventies and the inflation experience that we had there. So they don't have this background of experience at all that Fox needs to be bothered about. They, they can fill them up because they're kind of like a, I guess, the blank slate that comes from the experiences that they've had since they've been in the country. So they probably cannot even imagine what will happen to them if this democracy starts to really disintegrate. Then where do they think, where are they going to get their social security check? Because that's the first thing these corrupt people are going to go cash. I mean, that's going to be over. And so all of their choices of their rights, this is what I wish Hollywood would do something about. Because remember, we've got that wonderful movie, Don't Look Up, when the asteroid is coming. So what about, what is it going to be like without democracy? Has anybody thought about, where's that program? Where's that documentary? This is what it's going to be like. You want rights? Are you kidding me? Well, sometimes people want something they don't realize what it's going to be like. You know, I mean, let's, let's face it, democracy is taking a hit in this country because we're a gridlock in Congress. The Senate is one big gridlock. So nothing's passing. Nothing's getting done. And then you're right for criticism from both sides that, gee, democracy doesn't seem to work because nothing gets done and the country falls apart. At least a strongman like Donald Trump, he knows how to get things done, which he didn't. He really never got that much accomplished. But it's the perception that Donald Trump was doing things. He was a businessman and he knew how to get things done. Well, bologna. And that's why the dictator, the king, is such a satisfactory default. And it still is the default. Obviously, even with the success of this American democracy over 200 years, if we can call it that, but since it's the only one there is that done what it has done, I would say it's pretty successful, but they don't understand what that means to have that and that it can go away and that they will be left with the options. The options over the 10,000 years have been dictators and pharaohs and kings. And that's the default. And that's what they're doing with Trump. And I really believe that. And, you know, people have a tendency towards that because we haven't been out of all of that for very long. We've been more in that way of governing and trying to make it better and better. 240 years isn't that long as far as the spectrum of time and governance of countries. You're a good point. Very good point. Yeah. And without education, okay, getting around to hearing about Hammurabi, you know, thousands of years ago and how that was real good, but he was also like a pharaoh or a king. So what does that mean? So many, many people are not in touch with history, as you know, and I think that the beleaguered historians come on and talk about that a lot that people do. And they ought to. You know, we've said this, you and I've said this on multiple programs in the past. I mean, where did civics 101 go? It just left. And most of these students today don't even have a clue on how their local city government, state government, federal government, they don't have a clue on that on how it's compromised or compromised, comprised. And the bottom line is they ought to. They really should. So, hey, do you think there's anything out of the hearing that we're going to hear right out of the gate that's something new and something earth shattering or is it going to be something we've been hearing all along in the dribs and drabs and nothing really new until far later into other hearing dates? Okay, I'm going to assume that you're not paused to contemplate what's going on here. So I'm going to just continue with this line of questioning and you may or may not be able to answer. The question was, are people going to carry on? I mean, they're going to, you know, are they going to hear anything new during these hearings? And I guess the question is been posed, but now will they come up with something new? And I think people are looking for not the same proud boys, you know, imply implication, they're not looking for the oath keepers. They know those guys have been charged with sedition. They've pled guilty to sedition. I think people are wondering if how high just goes up the ladder? Does this go up to the Gohmerts or, you know, those politicians in Congress that maybe have aided this whole process? Do you think that's what they might see in this hearing either today or days following? Well, Tim, I think that is a very valuable goal. I think we really, it's needed. It needs to show how these foot soldiers who are the white supremacists and the proud boys and all of these are the foot soldiers. What is this coup? And so when is it that we're going to get up out of that so much of the investigation? Yes. Hasn't it mostly been targeting these hundreds and hundreds of people who are these quote foot soldiers on quote, but now we got to move it on up to understand the roles of Roger Stone and when people like that. Do you think that's part of the motivation for people to tune in? They want to see who gets implicated in all this and how high this thing goes up? Similar to Watergate. I'm going to just take a stab that you're frozen again on video. So I'm going to answer for you. Please do. I don't know why I'm frozen. I'll be working on it here. All right. So go ahead and I don't know if you heard that question. Is that the motivation for people to tune in to see how high this goes up as Watergate was watched by a lot of people? Myself as one of them? Well, don't you think that people want to defend certainly Trump? They're on the line for that. They don't want anything negative to come and spoil their icon. So yes, I think they come would want to see it for those reasons. Yeah, because they assume already that he's not culpable. And so they want to make sure that that case is still made and that courts can still be accused of just being political in their attempts to do anything with him. As they're laying out the case for this hearing, I mean, they probably know that if you're one of the 33 percent that are GOP, there's no reaching you on a message. There's no facts that will change your opinion. There's no testimony that will make you think twice about the fact that, you know, stop the steal and Donald Trump was robbed of his victory for President of the United States for a second term. So they probably know that that audience is lost. Who do you think they're crafting the message for? Is it independence or to re-energize Democrats or a combination of both? I don't know. Well, I've been hearing that the assumption is that all of this is about doing it the next time. So that what where they are now is that they've got all the pieces that they need to know how to work and they are working almost all of these pieces. Like I said, their long term goal, they've been in it for the long run. Well, you know, they're in the long run for being able to have this coup be successful next time. I.e. if Trump wins, if Trump wants runs and doesn't win, then they will have all the pieces in place where they can actually turn it over and take hold of the Electoral College. And so that that means that a lot of including Lynn Cheney doesn't seem to be in favor of doing anything about the Electoral College or about a law that would keep a single political office influential in overturning an election. So that, you know, when he got down to it, if he got 28 states versus one last state, that one person could influence it by a vote. So that's what's pretty scary here is that it's beyond kind of the basic questions of interest and knowledge. It's what is what are the tactics and are they yet are they successful enough to have control of this? And right. Hey, you mentioned Liz Cheney. You know, she's already announced that she certainly will not run for President of the United States in 2024 that she's interested in, you know, retaining her Senate seat in Wyoming. How does she come out of all this, this hearing and her really admirable position to defend democracy, if you will, to defend the Republic. But how does she come out of all this with her constituents? Well, I think I certainly respect her for this effort. And I laud her for trying to point out where what it really means and get the evidence to support that meaning and make it accessible to everybody. But I've been, I've just been so disappointed in what the news is saying are her numbers in Wyoming that it doesn't look like she's going to be elected again, because Trump's had rally out there and that they're like she's like 50 points behind, I mean, a large number of points behind her challenger. Now on the other side of things, she has a huge war chest. So she's got lots of money to deploy towards winning this election. But I don't know if she's started to do that yet or not, but it'll be interesting to see what she does. Because at this point right now from what I've heard recently on the news, she's not going to win. And that would be a big blow to those of us who respected her courage and her integrity on this matter. We're out of time. And so before I ask you for your last words and your last opinion, how do you think this is going to go? How do you think viewership is going to be on this hearing? Do you think it's going to be a success as far as viewership or is it a nothing burger? That's a really good question, Tim. That is because are people going to be looking for the upward bound nature of this investigation and where it's going to go, and if they're going to actually find out who took it on as in the leadership? Or are they going to be turned off? Because we're going to see the same thing we saw at the beginning of the January one committee. So I venture a guess that they're smart enough. I mean, the people on that committee hopefully know how to do this or have been supported to understand how you do this kind of a presentation for success with an audience. Hopefully they've had that. And we'll all be there really seeing the roof. What did the senator say? Blow the roof off the top? You know, I have one more question to me. I can't help myself. I asked this to Chuck Grumpton yesterday. Did the Republicans make a mistake by not agreeing to do a commission, a bipartisan commission? And remember, commissions, you tend not to leak anything out. I mean, you really keep a lid on all information you've gathered, all testimony, all taxes, all evidence, really nothing is leaked at all. Did they make a mistake not going that route versus forcing the hand of the House to do the select committee hearing? Yeah, I think, Tim, that's such a good question and good point because there's the matter of how much choice did they have? I mean, I think that I'm sensing that it's fortunate that they're able to do what they've got. And now it's all being criticized as political because they only have two Republicans on it. But what choice did they have? Right. It was all stopped up before. Well, I'm talking about the GOP not thinking it was a wiser decision to buy off on a commission, where you won't have the dribs and drabs of leaking all this horrible information for the last 17 months. And I'm not sure if that served the GOP well or maybe it did. That's I think that's a really good point. And I think that they were trying to it's another reveal that they want to control the story. They want to control the information. So I think it maybe addresses that that they wouldn't they would want the least informative procedure in place that they could manage. And so that's that's what they've got. And I think that's what they want. They don't want this out. Maybe we would never heard another thing about it. Yeah, we wouldn't know. Yeah, good point. Yeah. Alrighty, we are we've run over time, but I'd like to eat your last thoughts about this hearing. And what do you think? I'm excited that it is going to happen. I'm grateful for their work. And I think it's more about our education and how this democracy is supposed to work and how we can make it work better. And that will continue to be an outcome as we go forward as to how the other side responds to it. And that may be there'll be some understanding that our representation in our governing bodies is not sufficient to hold back this kind of thing coming over us again. But anyhow, we'll learn a lot from it. And I appreciate that work and that our representatives finally feel like we're getting something out of the Congress. Good point. Yeah. Alrighty, well, I'd like to thank Stephanie Stoll-Dalton for her, her sage comments, although they were frozen at times. I'm sorry. All right. Thank you very much, Stephanie, for joining us. I'm Tim Appichella. This is American Issues Take 2. Please join us next Thursday at 11 o'clock, and we will hope to see you then. Until then, aloha.