The Difference Between a News Organization and Fox
Excellent piece from Steve Benen on what’s wrong with the way the mainstream media is framing the current war of words between Fox News and the White House:
For various media figures derisive of the White House’s criticism of Fox News, there seems to be some confusion over the nature of the problem.
For much of the media establishment, Fox News and MSNBC are somehow bookends, one on the right; one on the left. The prior has Beck, O’Reilly, and Hannity; the latter has Schultz, Olbermann, and Maddow. Both are cable news networks with primetime commentators who bring a certain perspective to their political analysis. So, the establishment asks, what’s the big deal?
It’s probably obvious to anyone who’s actually watched these networks, but given the lingering confusion, let’s pause briefly to explain why the conventional wisdom is absurd.
[...]
According to the network, Fox News’ reporting is “objective” during its “news hours” — 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays (eastern). Senior vice president for news Michael Clemente recently said, “The average consumer certainly knows the difference between the A section of the newspaper and the editorial page.”And that would be persuasive, if such a difference existed on the Republican network. But as this video helps demonstrate, Clemente is drawing a distinction where none exists. To describe Fox News’ “news hours” as “objective” is demonstrably ridiculous.
23 Responses to “The Difference Between a News Organization and Fox”
So one has biased news reporting and overbearing partisan commentators, the other just has overbearing partisan commentators. This is like the contest on who is the tallest midget.
“This is like the contest on who is the tallest midget.”
Aahh…thanks for that. I needed a good laugh
Only one of these two channels pretends to be “news”. There's the difference.
“The average consumer certainly knows the difference between the A section of the newspaper and the editorial page.”
Cute remark. As senior VP Clemente not only should know that “average consumer” indeed can't tell the difference, but FOX counts on that inability to sell their “news”.
Agreed, JSpencer.
Perhaps if there were a cable news network that played the role of the “A section of the newspaper,” the average consumer would recognize the difference. On the other hand, people would probably complain that it was boring and never watch it again. If the average consumer was really interested in objectivity, someone would already have made such a news network and would have become rich off it. In my opinion it's not a problem of insufficient supply – it's insufficient demand. The nation as a whole is getting what it wants as far as news coverage goes.
I think a huge part of the problem is that many Americans have never learned how to critically analyze news stories disseminated through printed or electronic media. While most of us can pick up on the more obvious examples of slant (and choose to watch knowing what we're getting), we aren't always as discerning when it comes to bias and propaganda in programs presented with the cachet of serious news. We are often especially gullible when it comes to advertising tricks and claims. These forms of persuasion can be very effective, especially when they confirm strongly held beliefs. It's quite easy these days to live in an ideological bubble, catered to by the veritable cruise-ship-buffet style programming available to us 24/7. Want a steady diet of macaroni and cheese, chicken fried steak, jello pudding for dessert? Easy! It's all there for the taking and no one will make you choke down any fruits or veggies.
Every high school student should be required to take classes in debate, logic, persuasive rhetoric etc. and be given practical opportunities to analyze stories and advertising to become more savvy consumers in this Age of Information. When I took a debate class in college, our teacher was very demanding when it came to sourcing material, and if a student tried to rely on flimsy source material, an opponent would almost certainly capitalize on that in a most ruthless manner.
I am a lot more likely to trust a news source when events are covered in an even-handed manner, when the source does not “create” the story or become a part of it, and when any muckraking type stories are pursued equally regardless of party or personalities involved.
That isn't entirely true. The Newshour on PBS has been rated as the most unbiased news program. It doesn't have a trivial audience size, and despite lots of government cuts, remains funded thanks to listener support.
Exactly correct.
Amazing how many people there are that have trouble with that.
We really enjoy watching the Newshour — do you know what organization provided the rating? Just curious.
Fox news has viewership up about 20%, the New York Times, Helen Thomas, Washington post, and other media outlets have been critical of the White House policy towards Fox. Simply put the administration and anti-Fox news punditry is getting its *bleep* kicked on this one.
That whole spiel during the election of Obama being a uniter is also going down the toilet.
Candidate Obama was a uniter during the campaign season. President Obama is “the man” now. Two different environments with different jobs, worlds apart.
As far as the Obama Administration's war against Fox News, I think it is a colossal pissing contest between two entrenched groups. Fox News will win by default since they are only a news organization, whereas President Obama is, well, THE PRESIDENT! If I was a close adviser to the POTUS, I would be slapping him silly right now. The same answer he gave that nine-year boy a few days ago (“the other side does this to keep you on your toes”) is what the ENTIRE Obama Administration should have been saying. Now we just have another sideshow attraction that will get us nowhere.
Obama finally found a war he has the political courage to fight. It's fortunate that Fox isn't a terrorist nation, or he would be offering to appear 'without preconditions' on Sean Hannity.
I still fail to see how the elephant in the room is always ignored – CBS/ABC/NBC are just as biased in their reporting, but to the other direction. But it is the 'correct' bias, and so it doesn't even count.
That state of affairs is the whole reason Fox News got launched in the first place, and is the reason it is the most watched news now.
Disclaimer – unless I am laid up in a hospital bed with no internet access and nothing else on, I don't watch any network news anymore, and haven't for years. They are all a joke, IMHO. “Network” was one of the most prescient movies in history, even if it was just considered broad satire when it was made.
From my point view no deference between them. Thank you for asked us
Resveratrol
Calling Fox news is like calling Coke juice. I really find it amusing that Obama is attacked for telling the truth when the Bush admin attacked all news orgs except Fox and eventually stopped going on all programs but Foxes with few exceptions.
There was an academic team that wrote a paper a few years back that many conservatives point to as demonstrating that the media has a 'liberal' slant. I read it, and what stuck out to me is that the Newshour was smack dab in the middle, ie no bias. I wish I could remember the authors names.
Network news sucks. I don't even have cable, so I seldom see it, which is great.
I think the difference for a lot of people is that the other network news organizations try not to be biased, and usually fail. At least they try, though, which means they could be much worse.
When I watch Fox, I get the impression they aren't even trying. They are proud of the bias. I mean omitting coverage of the gay rights march, which had a higher attendence than the Tea Party marches that Fox had widely promoted? You can't tell me that wasn't a deliberate omission.
Obama and the lib Dems in Congress continue to fail more badly than ever.
Obama and his arrogant and conceited, as well as naive and childish, administration aren't satisfied with a compliant and often-openly-complicit liberal media, which has always been the fact excepting Fox. (Deniers remain liars.)
Obama and his arrogant and conceited, as well as naive and childish, administration expect to control press conferences and shape public opinion (at least among the lower public that is susceptible to this kind of manipulation, the “personality cult” core first and foremost).
Obama and his arrogant and conceited, as well as naive and childish, administration have to concede at least some elements of reality, including not only their many failures, and their increasing alienation of the mainstream (and better intellectual and moral constituency) of the public, and (just as they deliberately delay the worst consequences of what they seek for legislation, until after the 2010 or 2012 elections), they know they can't continue to blame Bush for their own obvious failures, as all but the most stupid no longer rush to accept and believe this.
And they continue to be so self-destructive they are dysfunctional.
They are angry, and throwing tantrums, and upset that everything is not instantly perfectly as they wish.
They can't continue to blame Bush for what they obviously have done wrong.
So what's next? And what coincides with their impatience with a liberal media that's not pliant and obedient enough?
Find a new distraction and scapegoat for their own failures, is the answer.
And, it helps attack (once again, lacking intellectual clarity and honesty) a vague “conservative enemy,” as the public, during Town Hall meetings that backfired on the Dems, served earlier, as well as “information” in the way the administration sought Commie-style finger-pointing of “offenders” not long ago, disseminators of (“counter-revolutionary”) “disinformation.”
It's time to attack Fox, and make it the current scapegoat and distraction for its failures, especially with health care “reform.”
Intelligent people know this already, though, and oppose the wrongs of ObamaCo and Congre-Dems, already, however.
They're hoping (and may be out of touch with reality again) that enough people lower on the bell curve are still so faithful they'll believe the Fox attacks.
The rest of us simply lose more respect for them for being scummy again, and await what they try to do to recover with their health care “reform” effort, as well as what other mischief they may attempt, such as with loony-political “climate” related legislation, more intervention of all kinds, and so on.
“I don't watch any network news anymore, and haven't for years. “
The liberal activism and propaganda are revolting.
Plus the quality (including intellectual, and these days, flippant and immature behavioral quality) is often little better than the rest of the garbage that might be seen, like “sit-coms” or other prime time programming, loud-mouth sports programming (with gimmicky graphics and stupid sound effects, as I wrote many years ago), or other mental much.
Note that the alternative sources to the networks aren't better. Discovery, History, other sources all feature stupid jerky presentations (suitable for the attention span of toddlers), bright flashes and bursts of sound between scenes (more childishness nonsense) and these days feature (as well as, say, CNN on Campbell Brown's degraded show this autumn) deliberately speeded-up motion — stupid programming for stupid people!
I have avoided teevee (the well-earned pejorative name, with all it implies) for thirty years and more.
“Helen Thomas, Washington post, and other media outlets have been critical of the White House policy towards Fox. “
Helen Thomas (a professional, pestilent liberal gadfly) is no dummy. She knows “management” and manipulation (seeking control) when she is subjected to it. (“Even Nixon never did that.”)
As to the liberal media with any remaining brains (they have them, which they devote to liberal and activist “crusader” journalism routinely), they know that if Fox succumbs to tyranny over the press, they're next. (They've already been given a lighter dose of it!)
I don't think the other MSM try not to be biased. I think liberal bias is accepted by the left as unbiased reporting. That has always been the problem – they think their worldview o the only valid one, so news slanted that way by definition is not biased.
The list of news items that THEY ignore completely, or until it has been going on so long they cannot ignore it any longer, is just too extensive to go into. Besides, if you think they don't do it too, then I doubt any list I provide will change your mind anyway.
“I think liberal bias is accepted by the left as unbiased reporting”
They even say it is unbiased or objective, or even would defend bias when politically practical: “The details don't matter so much as the message we want the user to know” or “the need for urgency” (global warming and the use of “scary scenarios”).
[...] The Difference Between a News Organization and Fox [...]