Fox News uses the word ‘hate’ far more often than MSNBC or CNN

Fox’s talk of hate undermines democratic values like tolerance and reduces Americans’ trust of their fellow citizens.

media, Fox News, MSNBC
Sean Hannity on Fox.Photo credit: YouTube/Fox News/The Conversation

This article originally appeared on 09.30.20



`Fox News is up to five times more likely to use the word “hate” in its programming than its main competitors, according to our new study of how cable news channels use language.

Fox particularly uses the term when explaining opposition to Donald Trump. His opponents are said to “hate” Trump, his values and his followers.

Our research, which ran from Jan. 1 to May 8, 2020, initially explored news of Trump’s impeachment. Then came the coronavirus. As we sifted through hundreds of cable news transcripts over five months, we noticed consistent differences between the vocabulary used on Fox News and that of MSNBC.

While their news agendas were largely similar, the words they used to describe these newsworthy events diverged greatly.


Fox and hate.

For our study, we analyzed 1,088 program transcripts from the two ideologically branded channels – right-wing Fox and left-wing MSNBC – between 6 p.m. and 10:59 p.m.

Because polarized media diets contribute to partisan conflict, our quantitative analysis identified terms indicating antipathy or resentment, such as “dislike,” “despise,” “can’t stand” and “hate.”

We expected to find that both of the strongly ideological networks made use of such words, perhaps in different ways. Instead, we found that Fox used antipathy words five times more often than MSNBC. “Hate” really stood out: It appeared 647 times on Fox, compared to 118 on MSNBC.

Fox usually pairs certain words alongside “hate.” The most notable was “they” – as in, “they hate.” Fox used this phrase 101 times between January and May. MSNBC used it just five times.

To put these findings in historic context, we then used the GDELT Television database to search for occurrences of the phrase “they hate” on both networks going back to 2009. We included CNN for an additional comparison.

We found Fox’s usage of “they hate” has increased over time, with a clear spike around the polarizing 2016 Trump-Clinton election. But Fox’s use of “hate” really took off when Trump’s presidency began. Beginning in January 2017, the mean usage of “they hate” on the network doubled.

Fox says ‘they hate’ way more than CNN or MSNBC.

Since 2011 all three major cable news channels used the phrase “they hate” in their evening newscasts (between 6 and 11 p.m.). But starting with the 2016 Clinton-Trump race, FOX News has done so far more often than CNN and MSNBC.

CNN, Donald Trump, culture
A graph representing the segments mentioning “they hate." <a href="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQ0ODE0Mi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3OTI1MzYwOH0.pwfAenKnRHq7ZMify8n3XSmP25-_rCi06b4gNsn4fj8/img.png?width=980">The Conversation, CC-BY-ND Source: Te</a>

‘Us’ versus ‘them’.

So who is doing all this hating – and why – according to Fox News?

Mainly, it’s Democrats, liberals, political elites and the media. Though these groups do not actually have the same interests, ideology or job description, our analysis finds Fox lumps them together as the “they” in “they hate.”

When Fox News anchors say “they hate…”

Quantitative analysis shows Fox News’ used the phrase “they hate” frequently on its evening programing between January and May 2020, most commonly referring to Democrats (29% of the time) or to a non-specific group like “political elites” (24% of the time). Many of these terms were used interchangeably, as if they were one group unified in their hatred.

news anchors, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson
Who are “they”? Table: The Conversation CC-BY-ND Source: <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/1255/Hate_on_Fox_News_draft_report_9-28-20.pdf?1601308357">C. Knüpfer & R. Entman</a>

As for the object of all this hatred, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and other Fox hosts most often name Trump. Anchors also identify their audience – “you,” “Christians” and “us” – as the target of animosity. Only 13 instances of “they hate” also cited a reason. Examples included “they can’t accept the fact that he won” or “because we voted for [Trump].”

Who’s being hated, according to Fox News.

President Trump, politics, public policies, political discourse
Whom or what do “they hate”? Table: The Conversation CC-BY-ND Source: <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/1255/Hate_on_Fox_News_draft_report_9-28-20.pdf?1601308357">C. Knüpfer & R. Entman</a>

Thirty-six percent of times that Fox News anchors said “they hate” between January and May 2020, Trump was the alleged target of that hatred. A smattering of other targets were also named (“you,” “me,” “Christians,” etc.). Rarely did Fox anchors offer a reason for this animosity.

Citing liberal hate as a fact that needs no explanation serves to dismiss criticism of specific policies or events. It paints criticism or moral outrage directed at Trump as inherently irrational.

For loyal Fox viewers, these language patterns construct a coherent but potentially dangerous narrative about the world.

Our data show intensely partisan hosts like Hannity and Carlson are more likely than other Fox anchors to use “they hate” in this way. Nevertheless, the phrase permeates Fox’s evening programming, uttered by hosts, interviewees and Republican sources, all painting Trump critics not as legitimate opponents but hateful enemies working in bad faith.

By repeatedly telling its viewers they are bound together as objects of the contempt of a powerful and hateful left-leaning “elite,” Fox has constructed two imagined communities. On the one side: Trump along with good folks under siege. On the other: nefarious Democrats, liberals, the left and mainstream media.

Research confirms that repeated exposure to polarized media messages can lead news consumers to form firm opinions and can foster what’s called an “in-group” identity. The us-versus-them mentality, in turn, deepens feelings of antipathy toward the perceived “out-group.”

The Pew Research Center reports an increasing tendency, especially among Republicans, to view members of the other party as immoral and unpatriotic. Pew also finds Republicans trust Fox News more than any other media outlet.

Americans’ divergent media sources – and specifically Fox’s “hate”-filled rhetoric – aren’t solely to blame here. Cable news is part of a larger picture of heightened polarization, intense partisanship and paralysis in Congress.

YouTube, political science, pandemic, presidential election
Sean Hannity portrays criticism of Donald Trump as hate-based. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C49DUbjCqO8">YouTube/Fox News</a>/The Conversation

Good business.

Leaning into intense partisanship has been good for Fox News, though. In summer 2020 it was the country’s most watched network. But using hate to explain the news is a dangerous business plan when shared crises demand Americans’ empathy, negotiation and compromise.

Fox’s talk of hate undermines democratic values like tolerance and reduces Americans’ trust of their fellow citizens.

This fraying of social ties helps explain America’s failures in managing the pandemic – and bodes badly for its handling of what seems likely to be a chaotic, divisive presidential election. In pitting its viewers against the rest of the country, Fox News works against potential solutions to the the very crises it covers.

Curd Knüpfer is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Freie Universität Berlin.

Robert Mathew Entman is J.B. and M.C. Shapiro Professor Emeritus of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University.

This article first appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • 101-year-old woman answers kids’ questions about the old days in this delightful clip
    An elderly woman walks on the beach. Another older woman holds a child.Photo credit: Canva

    In a compilation that has resurfaced and gone viral (yet again) on social media, a 101-year-old woman named Alice is seen meeting a gaggle of young children, all eager to see the world through the lens of her long life.

    The group is called HiHo Kids, and they’re part of an online content platform that features children learning and playing. Their Facebook page emphasizes the importance of embracing youth: “Every kid – including the one inside each of us – needs imagination and curiosity about the world. HiHo promotes empathy through play.”

    No question is too big, too silly, or too small for Alice. The young tikes are, as children tend to be, truly earnest, and Alice seems happy to share what her life has been like for more than a century. In a montage, various children sit across from her. One asks, “What are we here to talk about?” Alice answers with honesty and humor: “Well, I think it might be how old I am.”

    This is, of course, followed by the question, “How old are you?” Alice replies, “I’m in my 101st year.”

    After a brief discussion about where Alice grew up, a boy named Micah asks about life back in the old days. Alice answers, “We didn’t have radio. No television. We didn’t have telephones when I was a little girl. There were not any trucks. They had wagons, and horses pulled them.”

    What was the world like?

    One young girl asked whether the world was in such turmoil. “Back then, did you see any wars?” Alice maintained her honest approach. “I did, and I was in a war. I was in the Second World War. We worked on decoding and encoding machines. Very secret work. The officers had guns, and they said if you told any of the secrets, they would shoot you dead.”

    Micah looks a bit nervous, so Alice reassures him. “But nobody got shot.” He seems relieved. “Good,” he says, smiling and nodding.

    To lighten things up a bit, a young girl asks, “What did you do for fun?” Alice fondly recalls, “I had dolls and blocks. But I really liked ‘boys’ things.’ Marbles and tops. And I thought boys were much luckier than girls. We had to wear skirts and stockings, even in the coldest weather.”

    Clara questions this: “Girls couldn’t wear pants?” Alice affirms, “That’s right.” Clara concludes that it’s simply not fair.

    Favorite insect

    Though Alice is now retired, she lights up when talking about her past work as a biology professor. “If you look at my shirt, you’ll see some of the things I taught about.” She points to a few insect brooches on her pale blue button-down, including a spider. When asked about her favorite insect, Alice doesn’t hesitate: “Ants. I did research on ants.”

    Clara could talk about ants all day. She explains that although they’re tiny, they’re incredibly strong. “They can carry something big, like a banana. Even three of them can, even though they’re this tiny.” Alice is impressed by her knowledge. “You’re very good—and you’re only six years old!”

    Micah asks what Alice likes to do for fun. “Well, right now I’m watching the Olympics. I write books, and I do puzzles. I enjoy email. I write to a lot of my friends. I even play Scrabble. Also, I try to get exercise every day.”

    She tells the kids she’s grateful to still have a working mind and body. “Some old people aren’t very well anymore. Some of them can’t remember things. Some of them have to have somebody help them. But I can do everything myself.” Micah exclaims, “That’s good! That means you’re really old, but you’re really good at it.”

    The rest of the conversation is quite moving. Alice is asked what the hardest part of getting older is. “You miss people. And especially when you live over 100 years. Most of the people I ever knew, and in my family, are dead.”

    Not afraid of dying

    This leads to a beautiful question: “Are you afraid of dying?” Alice is most certainly not. “No, I’m not afraid of dying. I feel very healthy and happy. My doctor said, ‘Maybe you’ll just die in your sleep.’ So I’m not afraid, because I have a good life.”

    Finally, quite possibly the most important question of the session: “What is the secret to living a long life?” Alice answers, “Being happy, working hard, getting exercise, doing things for yourself, not expecting other people to do everything for you. Those things help you live a long time.”

    The comments under the Facebook reel, where this was also posted, are full of praise.

    One commenter wrote, “As a geriatric nurse, Alice’s brain is freaking amazing for 101. Shoot, it’s amazing for most of my 70-80 year olds. Amazing.”

    Another agreed with Alice’s life: “She was a freaking decoder! These kids don’t even know the titan they’re sitting across from them. This is so cool!”

    And of course, people loved Alice’s interactions with the sweet children. “You can tell she loves to teach,” a commenter wrote. “She’s absolutely magical with the children. What a gift to introduce these kids to Alice.”

  • Why didn’t people smile in old-timey photographs? Smiling meant something different back then.
    Photos of a man and woman from the 1800sPhoto credit: Public Domain

    If you’ve ever perused photographs from the 19th and early 20th century, you’ve likely noticed how serious everyone looked. If there’s a hint of a smile at all, it’s oh-so-slight. But more often than not, our ancestors looked like they were sitting for a sepia-toned mug shot or being held for ransom or something. Why didn’t people smile in photographs? Was life just so hard back then that nobody smiled? Were dour, sour expressions just the norm?

    Most often, people’s serious faces in old photographs are blamed on the long exposure time of early cameras, and that’s true. Taking a photo was not an instant event like it is now; people had to sit still for many minutes in the 1800s to have their photo taken.

    Ever try holding a smile for only one full minute? It’s surprisingly difficult and very quickly becomes unnatural. A smile is a quick reaction, not a constant state of expression. Even people we think of as “smiley” aren’t toting around full-toothed smiles for minutes on end. When you had to be still for several minutes to get your photo taken, there was just no way you were going to hold a smile for that long.

    But there are other reasons besides long exposure times that people didn’t smile in early photographs.

    mona lisa, leonardo da vinci, classic paintings, famous smiles, art
    Mona LisaPhoto credit: Public domain

    The non-smiling precedent had already been set by centuries of painted portraits

    The long exposure times for early photos may have contributed to serious facial expressions, but so did the painted portraits that came before them. Look at all of the portraits of famous people throughout history prior to cameras. Sitting to be painted took hours, so smiling was out of the question. Other than the smallest of lip curls like the Mona Lisa, people didn’t smile for painted portraits, so why would people suddenly think it normal to flash their pearly whites (which were not at all pearly white back then) for a photographed one? It simply wasn’t how it was done.

    A smirk? Sometimes. A full-on smile? Practically never.

    old photos, black and white photos, 1800s photos, no-smile photos, no smiles in photo
    Algerian immigrant to the United States. Photographed on Ellis Island. Photo credit: Augustus F. Sherman via William Williams/Wikimedia Commons

    Smiling usually indicated that you were a fool or a drunkard

    Our perceptions of smiling have changed dramatically since the 1800s. In explaining why smiling was considered taboo in portraits and early photos, art historian Nicholas Jeeves wrote in Public Domain Review:

    “Smiling also has a large number of discrete cultural and historical significances, few of them in line with our modern perceptions of it being a physical signal of warmth, enjoyment, or indeed of happiness. By the 17th century in Europe it was a well-established fact that the only people who smiled broadly, in life and in art, were the poor, the lewd, the drunk, the innocent, and the entertainment […] Showing the teeth was for the upper classes a more-or-less formal breach of etiquette.”

    drunks, classic painting, owls, malle babbe, paintings
    "Malle Babbe" by Frans HalsPhoto credit: Frans Hals via Public domain

    In other words, to the Western sensibility, smiling was seen as undignified. If a painter did put a smile on the subject of a portrait, it was a notable departure from the norm, a deliberate stylistic choice that conveyed something about the artist or the subject.

    Smiling simply didn’t work well in old portraits

    Even the artists who attempted it had less-than-ideal results. It turns out that smiling is such a lively, fleeting expression that the artistically static nature of painted portraits didn’t lend itself well to showcasing it. Paintings that did have subjects smiling made them look weird or disturbing or drunk. Simply put, painting a genuine, natural smile didn’t work well in portraits of old.

    As a result, the perception that smiling was an indication of lewdness or impropriety stuck for quite a while, even after Kodak created snapshot cameras that didn’t have the long exposure time problem. Even happy occasions had people nary a hint of joy in the photographs that documented them.

    Another reason why people didn’t smile in old photos is that dental hygiene wasn’t the same as it is today, and people may have been self-conscious about their teeth. “People had lousy teeth, if they had teeth at all, which militated against opening your mouth in social settings,” Angus Trumble, the director of the National Portrait Gallery in Canberra, Australia, and author of A Brief History of the Smile, said, according to Time.

    old photos, black and white photos, 1800s photos, no-smile photos, no smiles in photo
    Even wedding party photos didn’t appear to be joyful occasions. Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

    Then along came movies, which may have changed the whole picture

    So how did we end up coming around to grinning ear to ear for photos? Interestingly enough, it may have been the advent of motion pictures that pushed us towards smiling being the norm.

    Photos could have captured people’s natural smiles earlier—we had the technology for taking instant photos—but culturally, smiling wasn’t widely favored for photos until the 1920s. One theory about that timing is that the explosion of movies enabled us to see emotions of all kinds playing out on screen, documenting the fleeting expressions that portraits had failed to capture. Culturally, it became normalized to capture, display and see all kinds of emotions on people’s faces. As we got more used to that, photo portraits began portraying people in a range of expression rather than trying to create a neutral image of a person’s face.

    Changing our own perceptions of old photo portraits to view them as neutral rather than grumpy or serious can help us remember that people back then were not a bunch of sourpusses, but people who experienced as wide a range of emotion as we do, including joy and mirth. Unfortunately, we just rarely get to see them in that state before the 1920s.

    This article originally appeared last year.

  • ‘You better than that’: Door camera shows woman stopping package thief with tough love
    A Black woman (left) and packages on a stoop (right).Photo credit: Canva
    ,

    ‘You better than that’: Door camera shows woman stopping package thief with tough love

    She turned a tense moment into an unforgettable display of empathy.

    In a moment when most people might respond with anger and discipline, one Philadelphia woman chose instead to lead with compassion.

    On March 6, Bernadette Williams noticed a stranger across the street near a neighbor’s porch. As seen on Williams’ doorbell camera, a woman with a partial face covering appeared to reach for a delivered package. It was the kind of scene that immediately raises alarm, and Williams responded without hesitation.

    ‘What are you doing? Put that back! Put that back!’

    The woman quickly dropped the package. For a brief moment, the situation hung in the balance. It could have turned into a confrontation, a threat, or a call to the police. But then Williams made a choice that shifted the entire tone of the encounter.

    “I said, ‘She’s in trouble. How can I make a bad situation better?’ You have to be a part of the solution,” she later told WPVI

    Rather than continuing to call out the woman, Williams began speaking to her in a completely different way. As her voice softened, her message changed from warning to encouragement.

    “You better than that. Get some help. I love you. God loves you,” she told the woman.

    Then came the offer that has stayed with so many people who have heard the story. Reaching into her pocket, Williams told the stranger, “I’ll give you some money. Here’s $7, here’s $7.” It was all she had, and she gave it up willingly. 

    package thief, kindness, Philadelphia
    Close-up of hands offering money. Photo credit: Canva

    The exchange was brief, but its impact was clear

    As WPVI reported, the woman apologized and thanked her before leaving. Williams said she could see something had shifted in her expression.

    “Her eyes of ‘I’m sorry.’ That was in her heart, and that’s what I read. I hope that she will be fine, and I have faith that she will be fine.”

    For Williams, the decision was not about ignoring wrongdoing, but about recognizing what might be underneath it. Instead of seeing a thief, she saw someone who might be struggling.

    “She started realizing ‘I am somebody,’” Williams said. “She started realizing that ‘There is somebody out here that cares.’”

    package thief, kindness, Philadelphia
    A close-up of eyes. Photo credit: Canva

    That perspective comes from years of living in the same neighborhood and feeling connected to the people in it. Williams believes that communities are shaped by how people choose to respond to one another, especially in difficult moments.

    “We are a part of this community, and we can make our community better,” she told WPVI.

    The big takeaway

    There’s a common assumption that accountability must come with harshness. This story shows that it doesn’t always have to. The would-be thief is held accountable while maintaining everyone’s dignity, making a different choice in the future far more likely.

    While it’s impossible to know what happens next for the woman in the video, what remains is the example Williams set by actively choosing humanity when most would not.

  • Ethan Hawke beautifully explains why AI art can’t replace imperfect human creativity
    Ethan Hawke gets philosophical about art and creativity.Photo credit: Elena Ternovaja/Wikimedia Commons

    As AI plays an increasing role in our world, questions about its appropriate use abound. There’s no doubt that technology has the potential to improve our lives dramatically. But the way we choose to use it can also impact us in ways we may not fully appreciate.

    For instance, how might AI impact our relationship with human creativity? Ethan Hawke was asked about the idea that “AI is the future of art,” and how he would argue that human creativity matters. People are loving his thoughts.

    Ethan Hawke on AI art versus reality

    “Nature is reality,” he said. “And when you get away from reality, you get lost. Human creativity is nature manifest in us. It is happening in us.”

    Then he gave an example of why AI art will never be able to replicate a piece of art created by a human.

    “AI could make an amazing portrait of the Sundance Film Festival, and it’ll be incredible,” he said. “Or my 14-year-old could color her impression of it. And the thing about my 14-year-old’s is it’s not perfect. It’s hers. It’s unique to a moment in time and a place. And it’s inimitable because it’s coming from her, and she is beautiful. And it’s not the painting; it’s the energy behind the painting.”

    “What makes a poem great is not this collection of words,” he continued. “It’s the energy behind the poem. Dance can be…you see people who can barely dance, and you can cry at the joy happening with the music. Because they’re alive right now and they won’t be forever. And when we start making things being about perfection, you’re just belittling the experience of life. You’re just totally ceding your humanity.”

    Hawke concluded, “It makes me sad, but it also makes me excited, because I don’t want to do that. I’m not going to do that.”

    So many people resonated with his response in the comments:

    “This is so beautiful and so true ~ everything he says is so profound and I’m here for this thinking…. we’ve become a weird world of social media perfection.”

    “I love how he got 🥲 talking about the imperfections created by hand from his daughter. What a beautiful way of describing creativity.”

    “Can he just write a philosophy book already? We all know we’d read it.”

    @ethanhawke always saying what the world needs to hear. Thank you sir! Thank you for defending the magic of NATURE and defending the MAGIC of humanity. More of this ENERGY and CONSCIOUSNESS ❤️❤️❤️.”

    “This feels less like an anti-AI take and more like a pro-human one.”

    AI isn’t going anywhere, time to choose the role it plays in society

    That last comment hits the nail on the head. Whether you love it, hate it, or aren’t sure how to feel about it, AI is here. The conversations we have about it, and how we consciously choose to engage with it, matter. There’s a lot to consider on that front, ethically, educationally, environmentally, and more.

    But one thing those considerations are forcing us to do is to examine the value of human creativity. Not the dollar amounts we can assign to it, but the inherent value of the energy behind an artist’s unique expression. Generative AI will never be able to replace human creativity, no matter how “perfectly” it may replicate it. The real beauty of art is the singularity of the human spirit and the unique energy an artist brings to it.

    As Hawke said, we can choose not to cede our humanity in the age of AI—and we can be excited about that choice because the beauty of human creativity is absolutely worth celebrating.

  • Pop music’s most famous phone number now connects callers to a cancer support helpline
    Jenny's number can now help cancer patients.Photo credit: TutoneJJ/YouTube & Canva

    Since the 1980s, one particular phone number has earwormed its way into pop culture’s collective memory. That number? 867-5309 (which you probably just sang in your head). Today, however, that memorable number doesn’t belong to Jenny anymore. Thanks to Tommy Tutone’s frontman, dialing it now connects cancer patients to a support group.

    Tommy Heath, the lead singer of Tommy Tutone, teamed up with the Cancer Support Community to secure the number for its free support helpline. In an exclusive interview with People, Heath shared how cancer has affected him as he’s gotten older, noting that he is dealing with “minor” skin cancer himself.

    “I have some family members who are struggling with cancer,” he told People. “I’m out on tour with a lot of bands and suddenly somebody’s not there.” 

    The song’s prank-filled past

    The song “867-5309/Jenny” reached No. 4 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1982. However, its catchy, memorable chorus led to a wave of stories beyond music. It also sparked years of prank calls, with people asking for “Jenny” whenever they dialed the number—both during the song’s heyday in the 1980s and decades later.

    The Cancer Support Community’s hotline provides expert support from trained specialists who offer personal guidance, information, and a listening ear for cancer patients. Having such a recognizable phone number helps ensure people know exactly which number to dial for help. After learning this, Heath stepped in, wanting to give back after getting so much from the number that made him famous.

    “I need to give back to the community, the people who have supported me all these years,” he told People. “I’m going to do what I can…I’d be happy if this was an enduring legacy, and made people smile and give them hope.”

    Now, when someone dials the number using the 272 area code (or “CSC,” for “Cancer Support Community”), it connects them to a professional who can help people with cancer.

    At 78, Heath is still going strong, performing live. And yes, he still happily plays and sings “867-5309/Jenny” for the crowds that support him.

    If you need additional or specialized support in your battle against cancer, visiting the American Cancer Society’s website can help. Searching for and connecting with professionals there can provide patients with additional resources, including in-person, local support.

  • Grocery store’s produce section concerts give indie musicians a live venue. People want more.
    A band plays in the produce section of Fiesta Fresh Market. Photo credit: Fiesta Fresh Market/YouTube
    ,

    Grocery store’s produce section concerts give indie musicians a live venue. People want more.

    “We need this right now in the world…Real humans doing real human things.”

    On the outside, Fiesta Fresh Market looks like just another neighborhood grocery store in New Castle, Delaware. Inside the produce section, however, customers can listen to local bands perform their latest songs live and in person. These “Mercadito Sessions” have since evolved from a simple community offering into a full-fledged live music event.

    While grocery stores and live music don’t typically mix, at Fiesta Fresh Market, it’s part of the family. The Aguilar Garcia family, who run the store, have music in their roots—especially co-owner José Luis Aguilar Garcia, who works in the music industry.

    In the hope of helping Mexican American bands gain more exposure, José and his family offered their produce section as a space for Latin musicians to perform for customers. They were inspired by National Public Radio’s “Tiny Desk Concerts,” which feature artists performing live in a confined space.

    These produce section mini-concerts, dubbed “The Mercadito Sessions,” initially puzzled customers. Over time, however, shoppers came to welcome and enjoy the live music, with some even visiting just for the performances. Then, posts on the store’s social media featuring the bands began to go viral.

    “The idea is to highlight independent artists from the area,” José told CBS Philadelphia. “Because it’s getting more attention online, people are excited. They’ll ask when we’re doing the next one.”

    Commenters on the store’s Instagram celebrated the market’s concert concept:

    “This is so cool. Not everyone wants to go to bars and/or have to stay up late to hear live music. I love this so much.”

    “Honestly this is the absolute coolest thing ever.”

    “Amazing music scenes going on everywhere, love the magic being shared.”

    “We need this right now in the world…Real humans doing real human things.”

    “Such an innovative and creative idea! 🥹💫”

    @fiestafreshmarket

    Just put the bananas in the bag bro @erre6ixx

    ♬ original sound – Fiesta Fresh Market

    While the Mercadito Sessions showcase Mexican regional music, they are open to any genre. As the series gained attention online, many bands reached out to Fiesta Fresh Market to get booked. Several acts have come to perform and record as customers pick out fresh fruits and vegetables.

    Concerts for the community, by the community

    Musicians and customers alike say these concerts provide a sense of community among Latin Americans living in Delaware. They not only celebrate their culture, but also showcase it to others in New Castle.

    “It gives us a platform to portray who we really are,” musician Jesús Beltran Méndez told CBS Philadelphia. “There’s a lot of misconceptions about who we are. There are bad people. There are good people. We are just human.”

    @fiestafreshmarket

    @Los K-Bros “Ya No Me Llames” (Unreleased) live desde Fiesta Fresh Market

    ♬ original sound – Fiesta Fresh Market

    Demand for the music has grown so much that the grocery store is now hosting and promoting a full-fledged concert event. What was once a place to buy groceries has become a spotlight for the community—all by offering a small space in an aisle.

Pop Culture

Why didn’t people smile in old-timey photographs? Smiling meant something different back then.

Nature

Vet delivers best response after being told it’s ‘disgusting’ to let cats on the furniture

Kids

Toddler uses lawyer-like logic to make the case for taking candy from strangers

Wholesome

‘You better than that’: Door camera shows woman stopping package thief with tough love