** FOX NEWS JUST HIRED THE MOST DISGUSTING LIBERAL EVER! **** LIBERALS**** at FOX NEWS** Otherwise known as a DINO (**D**emocrat **I**n **N**ame **O**nly), a Fox News Liberal is an [ideological](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoliticalIdeologies "http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoliticalIdeologies") [Strawman](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWarOnStraw "http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWarOnStraw") character who is used to bring the *illusion* of political balance in a narrative or discourse that is otherwise overwhelmingly slanted in the other direction. Named after a critique of the [Fox News Channel](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/FoxNewsChannel "http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/FoxNewsChannel"), a United States news organization with conservative-leaning opinion programming, it has an opposite counterpart in the ‘MSNBC Conservative’ – a competing left-wing US news organization – or RINO (**R**epublican **I**n **N**ame **O**nly). Like any straw man trope, the *INO character’s job is to seem to be representing one point of view when in fact he is promoting the opposite. What makes a Fox News Liberal/MSNBC Conservative different from other straw men is:
- They appear on a news show, pundit panel, or other non-fiction political broadcast.
- They claim to be sincerely representing their own point of view. They’re not playing a fictional character or being sarcastic/satirical.
- They take positions or use debating tactics that help their opponents. (Thus, YMMV when it comes to whether a given person actually qualifies. A good sign is seeing who mostly quotes, links, or references a pundit. If the pundit’s appearances are far more often used as ammunition for their opponents than their allies, it’s a good chance they’re a Fox News Liberal.)
It’s quite common for them to propose ‘compromises’ when their opponents are clearly ‘wrong/crazy’ by their own standards, meaning they ‘should’ think the solution at least half-wrong/crazy. It’s also very common for them to admit that the solutions proposed by people with ‘correct’ political views are basically good and desirable, but quibble about the details or minutae of their ‘correct’ policies. note e.g. “You’re right, we ‘should’ kill everyone over sixty to solve the pensions-crisis. ”However”, we should do this by issuing licences to unpaid volunteer-executioners so these ‘Useless Mouths’ can be eliminated at no cost to the taxpayer. ‘My kind’ are, after all, opposed to the use of the taxpayer’s money to execute genocide.” The presence of a ‘Fox News Liberal’ essentially gives a ‘face’ to the ideological enemies of the show and lets the show make ad-hominem attacks on them and by extension everyone who holds their views. For these reasons a ‘Fox News Liberal’ may well be ugly, rude, have poor public-speaking skills and/or a tendency to say the wrong thing (under pressure)… or maybe they’re just really boring and speak in a monotone. The show itself sets the agenda for what is discussed – a Fox News Liberal will almost never be presented with a topic which “their kind” think is actually important, and the topic is often deliberately chosen to invoke all the poor argument techniques listed above. Other favorites include being more soft-spoken than the other hosts/guests, allowing themselves to be talked over, bullied, representing a skewed, poorly-articulated or crazily extreme perspective (even by the standard of their own party) for the host to handily dismantle, and never, ever getting the last word. In another formulation, the Fox News Liberal may be presented as the Only Sane Man with their particular political views. In appearing to be swayed by the ‘superior’ reasoning of their co-hosts, and agreeing with the position of the show, they make ‘their’ side look ‘unreasonable’. Expect a heartfelt and theatrical sigh, followed by the words “If only the rest of them were as reasonable as this one is, the world would be a better place!” In particularly egregious cases of this version of the trope, the character’s forsaking their (unreasonable) ideological beliefs and political allegiances (in favour of better/’the correct’ ones) constitutes Character Development. The common thread is that their status as an official representative of their ideology is used to reinforce the ideology and/or viewpoints advanced by all the other co-hosts in general, and the show as a whole. Being a token socialist or liberal on a panel show – wherein there are representatives of ‘numerous’ ideologies – doesn’t count if the show itself doesn’t have a political-ideological slant. Also, keep in mind that a Fox News Liberal might be sincere, having been given the job because they’re singularly ineffective at presenting their viewpoint. See also Informed Attribute. Compare with No True Scotsman, for those people who disavow the Fox News Liberal as a “real” member of their political group.
All Original Content Copyright** ©**2017 hnewswire.com All Rights Reserved.