SATURDAY: Rosen (essentially) gets it right!

SATURDAY, JUNE 13, 2026

What we saw on Fox: Can a modern nation expect to survive an epistemic arrangement like that of our own flailing nation?

We can't say that the answer is yes. At long last, we see a major figure in a major publication discussing this same broken culture. The dual headline above his essay says this:

IDEAS
American Democracy Wasn’t Designed for This
Can our 18th-century institutions survive 21st-century technology?  

There you see the double headline above Jeffrey Rosen's essay. 

Rosen is very sharp and highly knowledgeable. His piece will appear in the Atlantic's July issue—the issue which will be devoted to ruminations about America 250.  

Can our stumblebum nation expect to survive the technology to which Rosen refers? We've been asking that question for a very long time here on this sprawling green campus. 

Can our stumblebum nation hope to survive? Right at the start of his essay, Rosen offers this initial description of the (dangerous) technology he himself has in mind: 

American Democracy Wasn’t Designed for This

In 1787, after the Founders signed the Constitution in Philadelphia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in “Federalist No. 1” that there was more at stake than the future of a single country. The American experiment would “decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”

The Founders were hopeful, in part because the information environment of the late 18th century was favorable to “reflection and choice.” A flourishing newspaper industry kept Americans informed and fostered vigorous debate. But the number of publications was limited—about 100 total in the 13 states—and the authority of editors and writers meant that a free press didn’t turn into a free-for-all. And at a time when nothing traveled faster than a horse or ship, the sheer size of the new country meant that news spread slowly, an obstacle to impulsive public decisions. Given time for deliberation, passions would cool, and elected representatives could focus on the country’s long-term good rather than short-term gratification.   

Today, those advantages have disappeared, thanks to a technological revolution the Founders could never have imagined. The internet has turned everyone into a potential publisher, able to instantly spread facts or falsehoods to millions. Most people get information about politics and current events not from newspapers but from social media, which discourages engagement with human beings of different political persuasions. Now the rise of AI is discouraging engagement with any human beings at all; instead, more and more people are forming their views in conversation with a machine that lacks moral sense. As America approaches its 250th anniversary, the biggest question for our democracy is whether a system designed for the communications technologies of the 18th century can survive those of the 21st.   

That's the way he starts.

We agree with Rosen's basic presentation. Our current "information environment" surely is, without any question, an invitation for the society, for the nation, to crash and burn. 

Without any question, "reflection and choice" are hard to come by given our current arrangements. We agree with that basic presentation, a form of which we've been advancing for a very long time.

Can "our democracy" survive the pernicious effects of our various new technologies? With respect to those technologies, Rosen mentions the internet, and he mentions social media. Playing by prevailing rules, he never mentions cable news or (let's say) the Fox News Channel.  

There's a great deal more to be said about Rosen's nuanced article. We expect do so when the Fourth of July draws near.   

That said, we couldn't discuss what we saw yesterday, on our own TV screen, without mentioning Rosen's essay. Even as he disappears partisan cable, he takes a first, significant step toward the articulation of an obvious societal danger—one which has already conspired with fate to give us President Trump.   

As to what we saw yesterday, let us say this:   

Good God!

We refer to what we saw during the full hour of The Five. We also refer to the steady stream of garbage and mental and more squalor we saw a bit later on Gutfeld!   

These propaganda programs boast daily audiences which are double and triple the size of MS NOW's daily primetime programs. Can programs like these be survived? To that question, we offer this answer:

Go ahead! Take a good look around!

For a tiny example of what we saw yesterday on The Five, here's part of the way substitute co-host Kat Timpf began her meandering rumination about Hunter Biden's recent appearance on Gavin Newsom's podcast. 

Pathetically, that was the second topic under pseudo-discussion this day. On a day when the word "Iran" went unmentioned, this is part of what Timpf said:   

TIMPF (6/12/26): Honestly, I prefer Hunter Biden to Gavin Newsom. I do. Like, he's just—

 Because it is all out there. It is all out there. 

He doesn't— He's never really pretended to be anything but what exactly he is. He's like, "Yeah, I smoked a lot of crack." Like, "Yeah, that's me." ... 

And I do think that there is something really endearing about that for people. I think he does have charisma. I think you don't get to sleep with your brother's widow if you don't have charisma.  [Yes, she actually said that.]

But I think that people like Gavin Newsom—I just—

He's just icky. He just—he's icky! And he's not like, "Hey yeah, I'm icky."...   

WATTERS (serious demeanor): Are you saying that Newsom's ickier than Hunter Biden?  

TIMPF: Absolutely I'm saying that. Yes! Absolutely I'm saying—

WATTERS: Wow!   

TIMPF: ...I do think that Gavin Newsom, he's smarmy. I'll take a crackhead, recovered especially, over smarmy any day.  

WATTERS: Okay.

That's part of what we saw. That's what these corporate lunkheads were "discussing" in the second segment of the nation's most watched "cable news" program, on a day when the word "Iran" came up in exactly none of their pseudo-discussions.   

Indeed, every topic was tabloid this day. No serious topic was offered. 

In fairness to Timpf, this was a rare guest hosting spot for her on The Five. To a long-time viewer, it was obvious that she was trying to create an assertive persona which would fly on that program, as opposed to the familiar persona she employs on Gutfeld!, where she's a nightly panelist.  

That said, the inanity was endless on The Five, where every "discussion" was tabloid. And things got much worse on Gutfeld! last night, where the program's termagant turned propagandist almost seemed to chide Timpf a bit, saying this as he introduced her:   

"And today, we expect only eight references to Love Island."

That was a reference to Timpf's earlier performance during the first segment of The Five, in which she went on and on, then on and on, about that lamebrain reality show, with a comparison to The Bachelorette added in by Watters.   

That's what these flyweights were talking about, six minutes into our most-watched cable news program. Like everyone else, Rosen steered clear of any such reference, but can a nation survive the sheer inanity—and the steady stream of partisan agitprop—which form the basis of these propaganda programs?   

On last night's Gutfeld!, the ugliness of the evening's discussions overtook their sheer stupidity. As we watched Greg Gutfeld and four reliable panelists reveal the interiors of their minds, we wondered what it must be like to walk through life, all day, every day, with that much loathing, and that much squalor, banging around in your head.  

The program began where it often does—with the latest gerbil being shoved up [NAME WITHHELD]'s alleged ass while people like Timpf sit and watch. (Also, with the endless gaybaiting of Don Lemon, while Timpf provides her approval.) 

The anger and squalor continued from there, pushed along by the termagant host and his four reliable guests, including the bloated blowhard introduced as the former "wrestler."

Writing on a daily basis, it's impossible to capture the moral and intellectual squalor of these corporate propaganda programs. But can a modern nation expect to survive the effects of this endless dysfunction?  

In our view, Rosen advances an important idea in his essay for the Atlantic. But all around elite Blue America, the Timpfs and the former "wrestlers," the people like Gutfeld and Watters, are disappeared by the timorous orgs which—or at least so it seems—don't want to wrestle with Fox.

Fox is tribal propaganda too; it's tribal warfare of the dumbest, most undisguised kind. Can a modern nation survive this part of the new technologies?

For reasons only they can explain, people like Rosen won't ask.

Take the Fox News Channel Challenge: Go ahead! Force yourself to watch the full hour of each of yesterday's programs. 

One briefly thinks of Wilfred Owen, trudging behind the dying and dead in what was then called The Great War.