• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ralph Peters: Why I left Fox News

Newenglanddeac

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
13,135
Reaction score
390
Why I left Fox News

By Ralph PetersMarch 30, 2018 at 6:00 AM
| Perspective

You could measure the decline of Fox News by the drop in the quality of guests waiting in the green room. A year and a half ago, you might have heard George Will discussing policy with a senator while a former Cabinet member listened in. Today, you would meet a Republican commissar with a steakhouse waistline and an eager young woman wearing too little fabric and too much makeup, immersed in memorizing her talking points.

This wasn’t a case of the rats leaving a sinking ship. The best sailors were driven overboard by the rodents.

As I wrote in an internal Fox memo, leaked and widely disseminated, I declined to renew my contract as Fox News’s strategic analyst because of the network’s propagandizing for the Trump administration. Today’s Fox prime-time lineup preaches paranoia, attacking processes and institutions vital to our republic and challenging the rule of law.

Four decades ago, as a U.S. Army second lieutenant, I took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” In moral and ethical terms, that oath never expires. As Fox’s assault on our constitutional order intensified, spearheaded by its after-dinner demagogues, I had no choice but to leave.

My error was waiting so long to walk away. The chance to speak to millions of Americans is seductive, and, with the infinite human capacity for self-delusion, I rationalized that I could make a difference by remaining at Fox and speaking honestly.

"Fox News Sunday" anchor Chris Wallace says even though President Trump treats the free press like his enemy, journalists shouldn't treat him like he's theirs. (Gillian Brockell, Kate Woodsome/The Washington Post)
I was wrong.

As early as the fall of 2016, and especially as doubts mounted about the new Trump administration’s national security vulnerabilities, I increasingly was blocked from speaking on the issues about which I could offer real expertise: Russian affairs and our intelligence community. I did not hide my views at Fox and, as word spread that I would not unswervingly support President Trump and, worse, that I believed an investigation into Russian interference was essential to our national security, I was excluded from segments that touched on Vladimir Putin’s possible influence on an American president, his campaign or his administration.

I was the one person on the Fox payroll who, trained in Russian studies and the Russian language, had been face to face with Russian intelligence officers in the Kremlin and in far-flung provinces. I have traveled widely in and written extensively about the region. Yet I could only rarely and briefly comment on the paramount security question of our time: whether Putin and his security services ensnared the man who would become our president. Trump’s behavior patterns and evident weaknesses (financial entanglements, lack of self-control and sense of sexual entitlement) would have made him an ideal blackmail target — and the Russian security apparatus plays a long game.

As indictments piled up, though, I could not even discuss the mechanics of how the Russians work on either Fox News or Fox Business. (Asked by a Washington Post editor for a comment, Fox’s public relations department sent this statement: “There is no truth to the notion that Ralph Peters was ‘blocked’ from appearing on the network to talk about the major headlines, including discussing Russia, North Korea and even gun control recently. In fact, he appeared across both networks multiple times in just the past three weeks.”)

All Americans, whatever their politics, should want to know, with certainty, whether a hostile power has our president and those close to him in thrall. This isn’t about party but about our security at the most profound level. Every so often, I could work in a comment on the air, but even the best-disposed hosts were wary of transgressing the party line.

Fox never tried to put words in my mouth, nor was I told explicitly that I was taboo on Trump-Putin matters. I simply was no longer called on for topics central to my expertise. I was relegated to Groundhog Day analysis of North Korea and the Middle East, or to Russia-related news that didn’t touch the administration. Listening to political hacks with no knowledge of things Russian tell the vast Fox audience that the special counsel’s investigation was a “witch hunt,” while I could not respond, became too much to bear. There is indeed a witch hunt, and it’s led by Fox against Robert Mueller.

The cascade of revelations about the Russia-related crimes of Trump associates was dismissed, adamantly, as “fake news” by prime-time hosts who themselves generate fake news blithely.

Then there was Fox’s assault on our intelligence community — in which I had served, from the dirty-boots tactical level to strategic work in the Pentagon (with forays that stretched from Russia through Pakistan to Burma and Bolivia and elsewhere). Opportunities to explain how the system actually works, how stringent the safeguards are and that intelligence personnel are responsible public servants — sometimes heroes — dried up after an on-air confrontation shortly before Trump’s inauguration with a popular (and populist) host, Lou Dobbs.

Dobbs has no experience with the intelligence system. Yet he ranted about its reputed assaults on our privacy and other alleged misdeeds (if you want to know who spies on you, it’s the FGA — Facebook, Google and Amazon — not the NSA). When I insisted that the men and women who work in our intelligence agencies are patriots who keep us safe, the host reddened and demanded, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the — you fill in the blank.” As I sought to explain that, no, the NSA isn’t listening to our pillow talk, Dobbs kept repeating, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the — fill in the blank.”

Because I’d had a long, positive history with Dobbs, I refrained from replying: “Patriotism is the last refuge of the talk-show host.”

I became a disgruntled employee, limited to topics on which I agreed with the Trump administration, such as loosened targeting restrictions on terrorists and a tough line with North Korea. Over the past few months, it reached the point where I hated walking into the Fox studio. Friends and family encouraged me to leave, convinced that I embarrassed myself by remaining with the network (to be fair, I’m perfectly capable of embarrassing myself without assistance from Fox).

During my 10 years at Fox News and Fox Business, I did my best to be a forthright voice. I angered left and right. I criticized President Barack Obama fiercely (one infelicity resulted in a two-week suspension), but I also argued for sensible gun-control measures and environmental protections. I made mistakes, but they were honest mistakes. I took the opportunity to speak to millions of Americans seriously and — still that earnest young second lieutenant to some degree — could not imagine lying to them.

With my Soviet-studies background, the cult of Trump unnerves me. For our society’s health, no one, not even a president, can be above criticism — or the law.

I must stress that there are many honorable and talented professionals at the Fox channels, superb reporters, some gutsy hosts, and adept technicians and staff. But Trump idolaters and the merrily hypocritical prime-time hosts are destroying the network — no matter how profitable it may remain.

The day my memo leaked, a journalist asked me how I felt. Usually quick with a reply, I struggled, amid a cyclone of emotions, to think of the right words. After perhaps 30 seconds of silence, I said, “Free.”

Read more from Outlook and follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer, a former enlisted man and a prize-winning author of historical fiction.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph..._term=.f23775a3693b&__twitter_impression=true
 
He definitely makes some great points in both of those articles, and I'm glad that he's finally seen the light about Fox, but I really don't have much sympathy for him. He's the same guy who called President Obama "a total pussy" on Fox several years ago, among his other choice criticisms of Obama and others in his administration. Basically, Peters is the classic example of you reap what you sow. He was perfectly fine with Fox's right-wing bullshit as long as they weren't going after his friends and coworkers in the military and intelligence field, and he went after Obama and Democrats on Fox as much as anybody. It was only when Fox went all-in on becoming the propaganda voice for Trump & Company, and turned their attacks to his field, that he finally "saw the light" and quit. My guess is that he won't be the last right-wing talking head to feel the wrath of right-wing media finally turned against him, and not just his liberal targets.
 
Last edited:
wgaf? Absolving yourself of Fox News hysteria is about the lowest bar of conduct I can imagine for a pundit. So now he's just off-brand terrible? Great.
 
The speaker at our local Democrats meeting was a retired Army Lieutenant who works with the local ACLU branch. He’s a registered Republican and used to be a Fox News correspondent until he said that Iraq would be a mess after Bush’s initial troop withdrawal. He didn’t get invited back.
 
He definitely makes some great points in both of those articles, and I'm glad that he's finally seen the light about Fox, but I really don't have much sympathy for him. He's the same guy who called President Obama "a total pussy" on Fox several years ago, among his other choice criticisms of Obama and others in his administration. Basically, Peters is the classic example of you reap what you sow. He was perfectly fine with Fox's right-wing bullshit as long as they weren't going after his friends and coworkers in the military and intelligence field, and he went after Obama and Democrats on Fox as much as anybody. It was only when Fox went all-in on becoming the propaganda voice for Trump & Company, and turned their attacks to his field, that he finally "saw the light" and quit. My guess is that he won't be the last right-wing talking head to feel the wrath of right-wing media finally turned against him, and not just his liberal targets.


In a way, the rise of Trumpism/Trump is a “reaping what you sow” for Pubs.

Any decent and intelligent persons should have long ago left the party.

I guess it takes some longer than others.
 
The speaker at our local Democrats meeting was a retired Army Lieutenant who works with the local ACLU branch. He’s a registered Republican and used to be a Fox News correspondent until he said that Iraq would be a mess after Bush’s initial troop withdrawal. He didn’t get invited back.
Going from Fox News to working with the ACLU is a more impressive recovery. That I can appreciate.
 
Yeah. Great guy. He talked about Amendment 4, the upcoming effort to change Florida’s ex-felon disenfranchisement laws. I knew our system was bad but it’s practically impossible for an ex-felon to get his voting rights restored in anything less than 10-20 years regardless of the crime.

He told us he was a registered Republican at the end of the talk. M. Night Shyamalan in his prime could have come up with a better twist.
 
wgaf? Absolving yourself of Fox News hysteria is about the lowest bar of conduct I can imagine for a pundit. So now he's just off-brand terrible? Great.

Yeah who gives a fuck about Fox News being the most widely watched cable news station for 16 years counting? Who gives a fuck that they peddle propaganda to a wide swath of the American electorate? And who gives a fuck that one of their own is finally calling them out?

Who really gives a fuck about enlightening moderate conservatives to maybe meet you in the middle? Let's just focus on ideological purity tests.
 
Yeah who gives a fuck about Fox News being the most widely watched cable news station for 16 years counting? Who gives a fuck that they peddle propaganda to a wide swath of the American electorate? And who gives a fuck that one of their own is finally calling them out?

Who really gives a fuck about enlightening moderate conservatives to maybe meet you in the middle? Let's just focus on ideological purity tests.
Politics is ideology. Thats the fucking point of it. People having fundamental disagreements on policy which affects their life in real time. This reality tv show bullshit is not politics - who did Trump sleep with, what dis he say about the Oscars, what staff member did he kick off the island this week?!, all that shit is nothing more than a distraction for the bored. Most people even following the Russian collusion story knew that nothing substantive about the president was ever going to come out of it. Motherfuckers chasing their tail and obsessing about this vapid bullshit is the equivalent of believing that pro wrestling is a real sport. If this surface level decorum shit is that important to you, it's because you're out of touch with real societal problems. I mean, good for you, but don't come at me with that defensive bullshit because I refuse to dignify your favorite soap opera.
 
Last edited:
In a way, the rise of Trumpism/Trump is a “reaping what you sow” for Pubs.

Any decent and intelligent persons should have long ago left the party.

I guess it takes some longer than others.

And what party would this “decent and intelligent” person join? Any answer other than “independent” is pure folly. I question the decency and intelligence of anyone not thoroughly disgusted with both major parties.
 
And what party would this “decent and intelligent” person join? Any answer other than “independent” is pure folly. I question the decency and intelligence of anyone not thoroughly disgusted with both major parties.

Seems like the Libertarian exists.
 
It’s not my party, but it’s just not true that there are no alternatives to modern republicanism.
Well, that's an interesting debate. Being honest, I don't know shit about the actual Libertarian party or it's theory. All I know about libertarians is Ayn Rand, and that all the ones i've met had obnoxiously pedantic views on taxes and deregulation. So I guess that is an alternative identity for dissatisfied Republicans, but they're just going to default to the Republican candidate in most elections.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. Great guy. He talked about Amendment 4, the upcoming effort to change Florida’s ex-felon disenfranchisement laws. I knew our system was bad but it’s practically impossible for an ex-felon to get his voting rights restored in anything less than 10-20 years regardless of the crime.

Samantha Bee did a piece on this with Desmond Meade, who has been working on it for years.



Rick Scott sucks.
 
In a way, the rise of Trumpism/Trump is a “reaping what you sow” for Pubs.

Any decent and intelligent persons should have long ago left the party.

I guess it takes some longer than others.

And what party would this “decent and intelligent” person join? Any answer other than “independent” is pure folly. I question the decency and intelligence of anyone not thoroughly disgusted with both major parties.

Well, I changed my party affiliation from (lifelong) Republican to “Independent” about 8-9 years ago.

Mostly been voting for D’s Since but occasionally an R.

Sure, both parties are worthy of plenty of criticism. But at least Dems seem to try to do good stuff and haven’t abandoned a sane philosophy of governing. You know, as in government is necessary and should be a positive force for good. So let’s try to make it more so.

Pubs have gotten stuck on Limbaugh’s utterly shallow mantras: the answer to most every domestic problem is (magically) less regulation, privatization, and lower taxes.

And, over time the party has become increasingly controlled by true believers in that silly yet largely counterproductive and even destructive religion.
 
Since this thread has some commentary on the dearly departed libertarian elements in the GOP, thought I'd drop this here. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/defused/556934/

What are the libertarians getting? A man with Richard Nixon’s character but not his patriotism, an advocate of Reagan’s drug war and Mussolini’s economics who dreams of using the FCC to shut down media critics—and possibly a global trade war to boot. The Democrats are, incredibly enough, for a moment the relatively free-trade party and the party more closely aligned with the interests of the country’s most dynamic business concerns and cultural institutions. If the Democrats were more clever, they might offer the libertarians a better deal on trade, criminal justice, and civil liberties. Instead, they are dreaming up excuses to sue or jail people for their views on climate change, and the United States is for the moment left with two authoritarian populist parties and no political home for classical liberalism at all.
 
He nailed it with this line: "But “libertarian” often means little more than “a person with right-leaning sensibilities who is embarrassed to be associated with the Republican Party.” (Hardly, these days, an indefensible position.)

And he showed he's in that camp too with his lame, "But Democrats suck too" bit at the end that you quoted. He uses one op-ed by one senator from three years ago making points I've never seen other Dems make to claim that Democrats aren't "clever" enough to attract Libertarians.
 
Back
Top