Anatomy of a Fox News story.

Watch this ridiculous but innocuous story about a restaurant owner and the scary anti-American actions of his local government.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1061356942001/diner-forced-to-remove-flags/?playlist_id=86856

Armchair Analysis:

1. They're very quick to point out how there are American flags involved and someone is being "forced" to remove them.

2. Note the very first question the host asks the diner's owner. "What does the flag mean to you?" That's not asking for relevant information. That's a question designed to evoke an emotional response. It might as well have been rehearsed.

3. The diner's owner almost doesn't take the cue. he goes into an anti-government rant. the first thing he says is "the township doesn't want me to have the american flag because....they say....they don't want them." no one on the panel disputes this. It's important to note this in order to get the "punchline." Listen also to the rest of his complaint. It's obvious that he bought the wrong kind of pennants more than once, yet he goes on to make it sound like it was the type of flag that was the problem, not the type of display.

4. The very next question, "how did you feel about that?": She asks the same question as the first host in a different way, and like the first time, it's to evoke an emotional response rather than to gather facts.

5. And it works. He's "humiliated," and so he starts in with the jingoisms: "I'm a proud American citizen, what's the world coming to when a proud American citizen can't even display the flag on the 4th of July.....

6. Which brings us to the punchline, (at least 2-3 minutes into the interview) and proof that the whole thing is a farce: turns out the ordinance only bans those little pennant type-flags that car dealers like to use to advertise sales because they flap in the wind and distract drivers. It soon becomes obvious that Mr. ProudToBeAnAmerican could run a flag up a pole, put a message on a sign, or any number of things to show his patriotism without violating the ordinance. Remember how the interview started? It was all about how he was "forced" to remove the American flag. This makes the average fox viewer retreat into "2 minute hate" mode: "I bet if it was a rainbow flag or a damn Muslim flag, damn gummint would just look the other way." Yes, the ordinance may seem ridiculous, but it has nothing to so with the content of his banners.

7. the host then goes on to explain how the township says it's a 1000 dollar fine.

8. Be real: they told him to take the flags down. It is doubtful that they fined him if he complied, which he said he will. he doesn't mention having to pay the fine either, AND THEY DON'T ASK HIM, so if you're not paying attention, all you hear is "$1000 fine." Again, designed to evoke anti government outrage in the viewer. Even if he does have to pay the fine, THEY DIDN'T SEEM TO REALLY CARE, because ALL of their questions were about his feelings, all in an effort to get the viewer to sympathize.

9. In the end, the host wishes him luck in his "situation." By this time, it's obvious that there will be no situation if he complies with the ordinance.

This.is.a.none.story.

No one bothers to ask him if he could fly the flag another way. No one asks him if he had to pay the fine. There was no indication that he was in any real trouble nor was he affected in any way other than being told to remove the banners.

Instead, we learn that a middle aged Greek immigrant violated a code ordinance by flying mini pennants that HAPPENED TO CONTAIN THE AMERICAN FLAG. Instead, Fox decides that a local zoning and building code violation is really a liberal Anti-American plot to "desecrate our flag."

courtesy of the network that brought you "Obama Baby Mama?"

Soundbite Cinema.