Behar: People Who Watch Fox News ‘Don’t Know What’s Going On’

July 9, 2026
6:32 pm

▶

Listen to Article

Joy Behar’s latest swipe at Fox News viewers is the same tired media-elite script we’ve heard for years: anyone who doesn’t tune into the legacy networks is hopelessly misinformed. Yet the data keeps showing the opposite—Fox viewers consistently score higher on basic civics questions about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than the average MSNBC or CNN audience. When the topic turns to the Second Amendment, that gap becomes a canyon; polls from Gallup and Pew repeatedly find that regular Fox consumers are far more likely to understand that “shall not be infringed” was written as an individual right, not a government permission slip. Behar’s claim therefore functions less as analysis and more as damage control for a narrative that’s losing ground every time another study or court ruling affirms what gun owners already knew. For the 2A community the stakes are practical, not theoretical. Viewers who rely on outlets that treat the right to keep and bear arms as a fringe hobby rather than a constitutional cornerstone are more susceptible to supporting “assault-weapon” bans, magazine restrictions, and red-flag laws that bypass due process. Those same viewers often remain unaware that the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision shifted the legal landscape, forcing lower courts to apply history-and-tradition tests instead of interest-balancing that had long favored gun-control measures. When Behar dismisses an entire audience as clueless, she’s really signaling that any information contradicting the preferred gun-policy storyline must be disinformation—an attitude that directly fuels the regulatory pressure the firearms industry faces in Washington and state capitals. The larger implication is that information ecosystems matter. A population that understands the original public meaning of the Second Amendment is harder to disarm through legislation or cultural pressure. By contrast, an electorate spoon-fed the notion that “commonsense gun safety” is apolitical and uncontroversial becomes easier to corral into supporting incremental restrictions that cumulatively erode the right. Behar’s remark is therefore not just media snobbery; it’s a reminder that the battle over the Second Amendment is also a battle over which sources Americans trust to tell them what the Constitution actually says.

Best FFL Software Ranked and Compared!

For the 2A community the stakes are practical, not theoretical. Viewers who rely on outlets that treat the right to keep and bear arms as a fringe hobby rather than a constitutional cornerstone are more susceptible to supporting “assault-weapon” bans, magazine restrictions, and red-flag laws that bypass due process. Those same viewers often remain unaware that the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision shifted the legal landscape, forcing lower courts to apply history-and-tradition tests instead of interest-balancing that had long favored gun-control measures. When Behar dismisses an entire audience as clueless, she’s really signaling that any information contradicting the preferred gun-policy storyline must be disinformation—an attitude that directly fuels the regulatory pressure the firearms industry faces in Washington and state capitals.

The larger implication is that information ecosystems matter. A population that understands the original public meaning of the Second Amendment is harder to disarm through legislation or cultural pressure. By contrast, an electorate spoon-fed the notion that “commonsense gun safety” is apolitical and uncontroversial becomes easier to corral into supporting incremental restrictions that cumulatively erode the right. Behar’s remark is therefore not just media snobbery; it’s a reminder that the battle over the Second Amendment is also a battle over which sources Americans trust to tell them what the Constitution actually says.

Share this story