A question in this Fox debate

Ryan Jerz wrote:

I’ll start. I don’t even have Fox News, so I can’t say that I’m an expert on what they do or don’t do. My closest connection to the network is that I did various things for satellite uplinks when I was at KNPB. Fox had a topic, they brought in guests to talk about it – either because the guest was skiing in Tahoe or local – and the host interviewed the guest. You could argue that the topics weren’t always important (Michael Jackson was one of the recurring topics, but it wasn’t only Fox, either), but just about all of it fit with the definition. I think it qualifies. I worry that any media outlet being shut out is a black eye for democracy. I know Bush has been the master of it, but I’d have thought that with all of the complaining that people who are opponents of Bush had done (and rightfully so), they would be the last to close down when adversity hit. Fox is legitimate in my mind, but that’s without a lot of exposure.

Mar 9, 04:58 PM

Todd Zuccato wrote:

I think there is no doubt that Fox has a right spin. If that disqualifies it as a news source, then what qualifies as a news source? MSNBC, CNN, BBC and all the others I can think of spin toward the left. Does that disqualify them? As of right now, it seems to me that a spin to the left is a requirement to be a “legitimate” news source. I, like you Jerz, would like to see some justification for for the netroots whining on this issue.

Mar 9, 05:16 PM

Eric Odom wrote:

“As of right now, it seems to me that a spin to the left is a requirement to be a “legitimate” news source. I, like you Jerz, would like to see some justification for for the netroots whining on this issue.”

Nuff said.

Mar 9, 05:55 PM

The Anon Guy wrote:

I don’t have FOX News either, but I think it’s telling that the Radio-Television News Directors Association just gave FOX News chairman Roger Ailes their First Amendment Award. They’re not a political organization, but a group of professionals actually working in the industry.

I also liked the take in Broadcasting & Cable, another industry expert, on the “debate” debate when they said “But, frankly, Britt Hume is no more aggressive in his pursuit of the story he wants to get or the point he wants to hammer home than is Wolf Blitzer, they just sometimes come at the stories from different angles. The same could be said of any number of reporters for both operations, or reporters for other organizations, or reporters in general.”

I think most of the people complaining are simply confusing the commentary shows, like Bill O’Reilly’s, with the general newscast. Yes, the opinion shows tilt very conservative, because those are popular and gain an audience. It’s the same thing Air America does on the left.

But it is the actual news department on FOX that is televising the debate, not the pundits.

Is the news choices FOX makes more conservative than, say, CBS? Yes.

Are they an evil, right-wing tool bent on dominating the world and strike down any Democrat who dares venture on their set? No. But that is lost on those pushing this “controversy.”

Mar 9, 05:56 PM

Ryan Jerz wrote:

Todd,

I’m not sure that I’m looking for justification for the whining, as you put it. Fox is clearly on the right. So if their reasoning for pulling the debate is that they don’t want to go on a station that leans the opposite direction I can live with it. I won’t like it, and I’ve said repeatedly that it will hurt them more than it helps in the long run (not only because it looks cowardly, but it also takes yet another step in the direction of polarizing a deceptively unpolarized America). I’m concerned that a few well-respected bloggers in their area of discussion can basically tell their readers/participants/fellow believers that something is so, and those readers will go forth and swear that it’s so. It’s incredibly Rush Limbaugh, and I don’t think the people running around claiming Fox is “Faux” or whatever would like to see themselves as the same as Limbaugh’s audience. They sure as hell look like it, though.

Mar 9, 06:58 PM

Old Child wrote:

I don’t find the question (“what is news?”) very interesting, though I see how a student of journalism might. I’m part of the anti-fox crowd to a certain extent, but I would never say Fox “doesn’t qualify as a news source,” I simply object to the pretense that Fox is “fair and balanced” when it’s clearly partisan and biased.

I’ve commented further on my blog if anyone is interested.

Mar 10, 02:29 AM

JWH wrote:

“What, exactly, is news?”

Certainly not this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouKJixL—ms

Mar 10, 08:06 PM

Ryan Jerz wrote:

You’re right, JWH. That’s an edited piece that cherry-picked a lot of very small sound bites to display a very specific point of view. I think the editor/producer of that piece wanted it to be more artistic and documentary – not news.

Mar 10, 08:20 PM

Xiomar wrote:

Is this news?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwsySS2EzgU

The Nazi’s used misinformation/propaganda to go to war in the 1930s (read: war on Jews). It is not too much of a stretch to say that in a similar manner the MSM was fairly complicit in amplifying the reasons to go to war in Iraq (read: war on “terror”). All the anti-war experts got blocked out of the debate — ask Donahue. I don’t know if I could hack it up to just one reason that the media dropped the ball but group-think, elitism, sycophantism and unquestionging idealism come to my mind.

Wiki’s definition suggests that news is expected to be objective but it is not necessarily an obligation. I agree with that, since numbers and data and facts all need a context to be understood. And so framing of the issue is done in nearly all journalism from Fox to CNN to democracynow.org. Granted, I think there are fair and accurate types of framing, but the goal in much of the framing should also be transparancy. That is a tricky issue, maybe even impossible, and I’ll admit that isn’t going to happen to the extent I would want in today’s MSM culture.

To be honest though, propaganda isn’t news to me. I haven’t really fleshed it out in my head yet, but I don’t consider all of Fox’s information news — althought some of it has a conservative framing and that is a fair thing to do. Other times, it just appears to be a poorly veiled smear campaign or a stenographer for corporate interests and conservative politicians. These groups (corporations and politicans) get a lot of face time to sell their message already, and I don’t think the media should be pounding the message home for them. Media is for the people, no?

So if I was to guess where I am heading with this thought, it is that the news, to be considered news, should limit unquestioning regurgitation (a lot of Fox news does that) of cherry picked he-said/she-said conversations. My other pet peeve is that journalism shouldn’t be fair and balanced but fair and accurate. I think we all know that the Jewish Holocaust was wrong and as a journalist I don’t need to get both sides of opinion for the story. Such a qualifier just gives more face time to people that have been generally discredited (similarly, global warming skeptics funded by ExxonMobile).

I apologize for the long response. Good question though.

Mar 11, 11:02 PM

Jim S. wrote:

Good debate. I struggle with this one in my job, editor for an aggregate news site. Our policy (I am one of the dissenters to the policy) is to avoid Fox News when another legitimate news organization is reporting the same story. My colleagues – all journalism professionals – almost unilaterally agree that Fox has an “agenda” and therefore cannot be trusted for independent reporting.

I think O’Reilly is a douche blowhard, but he’s right when he identify’s Fox as a “traditionalist” news organization. It’s a more accurate label because it reflects a marketing philosophy rather than a political philosophy. Fox’s customers aren’t viewers, they are advertisers. The viewers are the advertisers’ customers. Fox is connecting its advertisers with its viewers. Every for-profit news organization does the same, and betrays its shareholders when it does not. The same could be said of the NY Times, the (flailing) Los Angeles Times, and yes, even CNN.

Over the years, Fox tailors its coverage to a traditionalist, i.e. conservative, audience, but generally with factual, relatively fair reporting. And they break a lot of stories that reflect poorly on the Bush admin, by the way. The confusion comes in when viewers judge Fox’s news operation by the rhetoric of the talking heads: Hannity, O’reilly, Hume, etc. They are seperate entities, and should be treated as such.

I have no doubt that if Newscorp felt there was a market for a “progressive”, i.e. liberal, news network, Murdoch would launch it tomorrow. But look at the failure of Air America (on the radio) and the ratings of Fox (higher than CNN and MSNBC combined).

The market drives Fox News programming, above all else, and each news story delivered by Fox should be judged on its own merits. But shouldn’t we apply the same logic to every source?

Mar 13, 06:30 PM

Ryan Jerz wrote:

Xiomar,

“So if I was to guess where I am heading with this thought, it is that the news, to be considered news, should limit unquestioning regurgitation (a lot of Fox news does that) of cherry picked he-said/she-said conversations.”

By that definition, I’m not sure what qualifies as news. This isn’t a dig at all. It’s just that I see media outlets unwilling to question anything. It could be that they are under the gun, so to speak, for fear of either being called out as unfair or snubbed by policymakers and experts. It sucks, but it appears that an awful lot of us in the U.S. get our news from the very places that don’t question anything.

That was a great comment and shows that some people are willing to explore this in great depth. Thanks for that.

Jim,

That was outstanding. I wish now I could corroborate what you said by having a history with Fox, but I don’t. I do, however, know you and have had a few chats about your view of news and journalism. I’ve also caught a glimpse of your bookshelf. I think you’re a great person to speak on this. I wonder. You used quotes on “traditionalist.” Is that because you think Fox uses that word on purpose instead of “traditional?” It would make sense from a marketing standpoint in that they want to sound traditional but not exactly say that. Meanwhile, they get to use a coded word to convey their marketing stance. Am I crazy?

Thanks to everyone so far for contributing. This is a conversation that’s making me think about a lot of things, and hopefully will do the same for anyone who happens by.

Mar 14, 01:38 AM

JWH wrote:

From Daily Kos:

“Look at Fox being all “fair” and “balanced”. I’m not sure why we’d ever think they were anything but a paragon of journalistic integrity…”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRvgALMCQJU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdailykos%2Ecom%2F

Mar 20, 02:36 PM