The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The section on brain chemistry is entirely contextualized by Fox News, though its stance on Fox is unclear, and seems to rely entirely on pop psychology, with no sources cited. It also had rather poor grammar, and used the term "libtard" with no context or explanation. I can't tell what the PoV is, but it doesn't feel impartial and doesn't seem helpful. At the very least it needs actual citations. Aos Sidhe (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've moved it into its own section (away from "research") and changed the heading to "example of rationale". It appears to be a summary of someone's reflections on their career. It's a long section in a short article – it's tempting to move it onto this talkpage until the article is further developed, but I've left it in the article.--Northernhenge (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
On reflection, I agree with the idea of moving it in here. The specificity of it with regards to Fox News is questionable; I think any explanation of the phenomenon should be generalized unless there's a clear reason for using a specific example or an excellent original source used a specific example (in which case reproducing it would make sense). Even beyond the specificity, there are no real sources for any of the claims other than one random guy making claims; I'd be much more comfortable quoting/referencing someone who actually has expertise in the field than a generic "Fox News Commentator" giving his take on it.
For reference, here is the section:
Rationale
Tobin Smith, reflecting on his 14-year experience as a commentator at Fox News, explains the production tactics used and physiological basis for why the outrage narrative is so effective at building and retaining substantial audiences. Typically during an opinion show, the first step is that the viewer will see a "Fox News Alert" or teaser cold open sequence portraying some tribal heresy or threat from an out-group. The tactic of using the Alert or cold-open serves to blur what is news versus what is opinion/commentary. In the viewer's mind, the amygdala assesses danger and prepares the body for a fight or flight event and releases a boost of adrenaline, cortisol, and epinephrine.[note 1] In the second step, the Fox producer runs a video of some noted liberal celebrity, politician or commentator "impugning, insulting, or mocking the viewer's right-wing tribal belief system." The third stage is that the viewer enters "active tribal mode" and the "risk assessing amygdala silently shouts, 'Say it again and I'll punch you out!'" In the fourth step, the "tribal enemy" stands his/her ground, repeating the pronouncement and tribal heresy with more authority. Tobin Smith's view is that this is set up is similar to a WWE choreographed wrestling match, with the right-wing host and guests stepping in the ring "rhetorically punching the tribal enemy in the nose for the viewer." In the sixth and seventh stages, the adrenaline rush in response to the threat is replaced with a dose of dopamine (associated with regulating strength of motivation towards a particular goal).[note 2] Smith's account is that this "sets the viewer into anticipation of another tribal victory." Finally, "with the thrill of victory triggered by the validation of tribal orthodoxy and feelings of continued safety, the viewer's brain now releases the good stuff-serotonin, the opiate-like chemical."[3][note 3]Aos Sidhe (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
