Fox Americana
Print
Email
I am not a defender of Fox News. Nor am I a defender of any other news outlet. No matter your news source, it seems you will find some bad or slanted reporting mixed in with good or objective analysis.
Yet Fox News has been criticized sharply in recent weeks, most notably by the White House. Others have weighed in with their thoughts, many of which have not been flattering. For example, a piece in Newsweek – a publication that presumably always strikes an exactly equal balance among views from the political left, center and right – claims that “Fox News isn’t just bad. It’s un-American.”
Over the top? I would say so. But the un-American argument takes a curious turn toward the end of the piece:
What matters is the way that Fox's model has invaded the bloodstream of the American media. By showing that ideologically distorted news can drive ratings, [Fox News President Roger] Ailes has provoked his rivals at CNN and MSNBC to develop a variety of populist and ideological takes on the news. In this way, Fox hasn't just corrupted its own coverage. Its example has made all of cable news unpleasant and unreliable.
In other words, Fox is evil because of its “right-wing bias.” Yet, Fox has “rivals” who have also developed “ideological takes on the news.”
Does that mean CNN and MSNBC have a right-wing bias? Or do these networks have other biases, that, to follow the argument, would make them un-American?
It doesn’t matter, because this line of thinking is mostly nonsense. Let’s give up the charade that news reporting is – or even should be – done from the equivalent of the 50-yard line. That is, if we could even approximate such a thing in a world where good and evil do not separate clearly into a blue team and a red team. (Laugh here if you’re partisan.)
In general, the more perspectives and competition that exist in the news industry, the better.
What do you think?
(Image by Ian Britton)
Read more stories at YPNation, America's young professionals network.
- Ryan Lynch's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
delayed response
Sorry for the hit-and-run, I forgot to double back and check to see if the conversation kept going--apparently it did. Couple things:
1) Of course Fox wasn't the first to do any type of ideological reporting. But what was unprecedented was the scale. In the past you had personalities that had ideological bents or, at the very least, sympathies. But this is an entire news network run by a dude (Roger Ailes) who used to do political communications for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush (he and Lee Atwater scripted and produced the Revolving Doors ad against Dukakis, which essentially played on suburban whites' fear of black people, and is considered to be a) the first modern attack ad, and b) the beginning of a new era of dirty campaigning on the national level). Ailes regularly instructs his news anchors on what to say during the day, which usually follows the Republican talking points of the day (this isn't conjecture, we actually have the memos for proof). Of course Ted Turner might have ideological tendencies, but he also kept Lou Dobbs on the air for years after the latter had become a radical reactionary. And yes, MSNBC is liberal, but not exclusively so--remember, they give Joe Scarborough three hours each day. Call me when Fox News gives a former liberal Democratic congressman a three hour show a day, but don't hold your breath because it won't happen. Other networks can be ideological like Fox, but NO ONE comes close to doing the ideological reporting quite as much, or as systematically, as Fox does.
2) Ryan's right, while we have a narrative that the U.S. used to have purely objective reporting, it's a lie, our media has always been flawed. We probably had better reporting in the middle of the last century, but we also had few choices, so many issues were completely ignored. I don't pine for the past--I think the new media in particular has had an incredibly positive impact on politics--but I do think Fox pushes everything in exactly the wrong direction. Even if they were ideological that'd be one thing, but they're partisan, which I think is much worse (the fact that the moderate Guiliani is loved on the network shows how exactly non-ideological but overly-partisan they really are).
3) As for Ewan's comment that "Un-American, Anti-American... Jeez... It's a sign of desperation when any side throws these terms around"... well that's a great way to gloss over the fact that those two phrases are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Anti-american is always negative, as it implies going against your country. Un-american, on the other hand, is more of a neutral description of something. For example, one could argue that a single-payer health care system is un-american because it goes against the individualistic nature of the country. That's possibly true, but doesn't mean that single-payer is bad policy, just that it's inconsistent with what America has traditionally been (note: I don't even endorse that view, but I think it's a good example).
I generally agree up until the last sentence
"My great fear is that this is becoming very much American." If you take out the word "becoming", I agree. Objective analysis is more myth than fact, and there is nothing new about that.
And now for the mainstream point of view
Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen,
This debate is pointless. the fact is that nearly all of the television media is garbage, whether one is enamoured with Fox News or MSNBC.
Rather than wasting our time trying to defend or attack the status quo, I think it would be far more useful to point readers in the direction of the raw data, without the filter of commentary (read: ratings considerations).
These networks are all poison because they slowly destroy the viewers ability to think critically and seek out the facts. That to me is a big reason why all of these debates are reduced to a sound bite, rather than an objective analysis.
Unamerican, no...not in the least. My great fear is that this is becoming very much American.
A little misleading...
I think this is pretty unfair to Weisberg. The term "un-american" and "anti-american" have similar colloquial meanings, and I think the fact that you refer to Weisberg's charge without actually referencing how he defines the term is a little misleading. In fact, it's clear that by "un-american" he meant that Fox had moved the entire American news media away from the traditional American model of independence and more towards a less independent and more partisan model, what he calls "the Australian-British-continental model of politicized media". But you quote his charge without the context of what he means by it. Did you really not think that your selective quoting would lead people to misinterpret what he meant? I know I assumed he meant "anti-american" until I took a look at the article itself (which most people won't do).
You also appear baffled that Fox is being singled out, but the reason seems obvious to me: 1) they do the whole partisan/ideological reporting a lot better than the others (who never seem willing to fully jump into the deep end) and a lot more often than the others, networks, and 2) they were the first to do it, which is why Weisberg in particular is singling them out. Seems pretty clear to me.
Baffled to a degree
1. Do you really think that Fox is singlehandedly responsible for moving "the entire American news media away from the traditional American model of independence"?
2. Do you really think that Fox is the first news outlet to engage in "partisan/ideological reporting"?
B'Jeez
Un-American, Anti-American... Jeez... It's a sign of desperation when any side throws these terms around.
Why was Fox created? Because there was a niche in the market for a conservative leaning news channel. Fox News are always singled out because they broke the liberal monopoly on news media - that's why they're so despised and that's why they continue to succeed. Liberals tried to do the same with talk radio, but in all honesty, sucked at it.
Do we honestly believe that Mr Turner had absolutely no ideological goals when he created CNN? Did he really just want to create "independent" news? Give me a break... The left "created" cable news and - excuse the vernacular - are just greetin' because they've created a monster. Seriously, if people can't see that Fox's competitors have a liberal slant... They clearly have a fundamental way of looking at things and there's really no point in engaging in gainful discussion.
It seems that when people lament the fact that the 'Fox Model' has stopped real news reporting it's merely down to the fact that there's another perspective. In all honesty, this 'independent reporting' was liberal reporting. Why are we surprised that they don't like a conservative competitor knocking them off their pedestal? This happens in business, if it's Pepsi challenging Coke or Apple challenging IBM.
Apart from it being an overt pop at Mr Murdoch I'm a little perplexed that Mr Weisberg would refer to "the Australian-British-continental model of politicized media", when it's illegal to politicize both news and radio in the UK (even if the state-run BBC has a left wing slant). Is he comparing it to our print press? I guess so, but what a weak comparison... Apples and oranges...
Finally, as for Fox doing "the whole partisan/ideological reporting a lot better than the others" - paleeease. Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow and MSNBC? They're just as bad as Beck, O'Reilly and Fox!
Personally, I flick between news channels. I love the choice - usually CNN in the morning and maybe flick on Cavuto at the end of my work day. In the evening it really just depends, but for political analysis I'll pick Rollins and Carville at CNN over anyone at Fox. But at the end of the day, there's a choice. As Americans I thought you would embrace that.
Maybe Fox corrupts the youth?
Ewan, I'm glad you continued the conversation, because there was a lot to address in Ethan's comments. A couple of additional points:
1. Our country has a history of "ideological" reporting, as you suggest. In the comments section at Current (http://current.com/items/91412275_fox-americana.htm?xid=42?), I point to the example of the role of media in the Spanish-American War. Many other examples exist.
2. I'm a bit troubled by the notion (mentioned by Ethan) that Fox does ideological reporting "better" than its competitors. Is the suggestion that Fox more clearly states its perspective, while other news outlets make false efforts at objectivity? If so, I would argue that the cloak and dagger approach (literally, using a cloak to hide the dagger) gives rise to a more meaningful problem than clearer expressions of ideology.
Also -- and this may seem a little off topic, but I think the analogy has some use -- it seems to me there are some obvious parallels between news reporting and education. While I do think that disinterested inquiry does exist in higher education, my experience with most educators is that they have some sort of personal/ideological agenda to advance. Such agendas are sometimes well known -- as in the case of Peter Singer at Princeton -- and we can have a good debate about whether universities should hire idealogues.
But I think a much deeper problem lies with professors who claim not to hold any agenda, yet subtly push students toward certain views. Socrates is an obvious example of a teacher suspected of using a cloak to hide his dagger. And while I don't intend to get caught up in a debate over whether IF Stone was right or wrong about the motivations of Socrates, I do think there are obvious similarities in how the supposed objectivity in news and education plays out when information is actually transmitted from someone in the teacher role to someone in the student role.