Fox News Worries About Its Reputation
I know, what reputation you’re asking yourself.
In lieu of the presidential debate canceled by the Nevada State Democratic Party last month, Fox News has succeeded in signing a deal with the Congressional Black Caucus Institute to broadcast a Democratic and Republican debate. The story behind the deal is proving to be rather unsavory. Does anyone remember (Fox) News Corp’s battle with the Nielsen TV ratings company over a proposed change to their ratings system? It turns out that News Corp hired several well connected former Clinton staffers, and perhaps used them to pressure Nielsen not to change their rating system. Yikes, or as Matt Stoller more clearly describes it: “Former (and current) Clinton advisors lobbying successfully on behalf of Rupert Murdoch to help his company cheat advertisers, and working through the CBC and CHC to do it.”
And DailyKos refers to the Jack and Jill Politics blog that follows the donation trail from Fox News to the CBC:
In 2002, the CBC Foundation was given an undisclosed amount from Fox News and parent company News Corp. Between 2003-2005, they gave the CBC somewhere between $47,500 to $98,998 with numbers for 2006 still unavailable. Don’t believe me. Get the facts here and take a look at CBCF’s donor list.
And on top of all that, Jonathan Singer and Chris Bowers at MyDD have noticed that Fox News appears to be testing an anti-Democratic message in an Opinion Dynamics poll they commissioned. Singer and Bowers are hesitant to discuss the poll in fear that the discussion will be used by Fox News to justify its legitimacy as a news agency.
Forgive me for the huge leap, but the discussion above brings me to a much larger discussion about the nature of our news today and why I’ve become so interested in using my blogging and consumer power to advocate for change. There is a belief out there that news outlets and journalists must strive for objectivity or non-partisanship rather than perform their role as the Fourth Estate, but that belief begins with two faulty premises; first, that news and journalists can actually be objective, and second, that the move to the so-called objective model has to do with fairness rather than the rise of the advertising industry in the U.S.
In essence, we are still fighting out the John Deweyvs. Walter Lippmann debate of the 1920s. Lippman, who had little faith in the American public, advocated for the “objective” style of journalism that included the idea of a media elite many defend today, while Dewey advocated for a citizen driven style of journalism that began with questions and provided context and analysis.
Salon.com commenter Jim Senter gets it exactly right:
Part of the problem with journalism these days is that journalists are taught they have to be “objective.” They can’t express an opinion themselves, even when the facts of the situation are beyond doubt. This is even expanded to exclude any analysis. This is how journalism is taught. Which leads to the situation we have now, journalism as stenography. It ends up in a he said she said reliance on official sources. Not the reporters assessment of what folks are saying, just WHAT they say. Leaving it up to readers to try and make sense of it, often with little understanding of the context.
Instead of focusing on objectivity, journalists should focus on facts. We have been witnessing a reality based on the absence of facts (that state of WMD in Iraq and North Korea, the Katrina response of lack thereof, Scooter Fibby, the actual cost of Medicare reform, etc.). And when you combine that anti-fact reality with the effort to be “fair and balanced” (not in the Fox News sense but in the Lippmann sense) or objective, you end up with what some are calling a liberal bias in the media when its really just that the facts (truth) are being reported and analyzed. Its how Fox News butters its bread. In this anti-fact reality, the actual facts become partisan. The facts become a “liberal bias.” Its a very clever cultural shift the conservatives have ushered in with significant help from Fox News, the corporate consolidation of our media, and some lazy American journalists.
I’ll leave the discussion of the history of corporate America’s influence on the field of journalism for another day.
Here are a couple of interesting commentaries on journalism and journalists by two local journalists. The more of this kind of self-critical dialog the public sees, the better. Bloggers may save American journalism yet.
Thanks for the video Kirk. Aren’t you a newspaper guy?
Enjoy this post? Leave a comment below or subscribe to my feed. You also can sign up for email delivery by clicking here.
There are only a couple of things that are wrong with this. It starts out decently and interesting, but then you set up a pretty big strawman with your “objectivity” stuff. Lippmann vs. Dewey was not about objectivity vs. citizen-driven. Even though the two are hardly mutually exclusive. Lippmann did not set objectivity out as his major theory. He did, however, say that people weren’t smart enough to understand public policy and the journalist’s job was to filter the things policymakers said into more understandable ideas so that people could follow along. It’s a classic top-down approach. Important people speak, journalist then pass along easier language about what the important people said and the public can understand their lives. Objectivity and the constant pursuit thereof is not a part of this model. It’s the traditional model that I see followed here very often.
You are correct about Dewey. He, in a nutshell, did what you say.
Objectivity is also not the biggest problem facing journalists in training. It’s the journalists themselves. Too few get into the business because they care about democracy or solving public problems. They do care about being the next anchor on SportsCenter or the Today show. Education, especially at a high level, is what you make of it. You already knew that, though. And the education being sought by the people we call journalists today is “how do I get an on-camera gig” or “what market will I start in?” That’s too bad.
The kicker that really blows the mind here is your conclusion. For you to spend all this time gathering information (right or wrong) only to drop on us that there is a liberal bias simply because the facts skew liberal is ridiculous and completely dishonest intellectually. What a sham you have become to parrot some mantra you see the big boys shooting out and expecting people to not see through it. It’s just another lame attempt to try to discredit Fox, which might very well deserve it. But this argument has turned you into a completely thoughtless tool that continues to pump out the same conclusions about a tired subject. Get off it.
Thanks for reminding me that I’m not a big boy (that’s not sexist) and a completely thoughtless tool. Coming from you, that means a lot–the day you agree with me about any of this is the day I kill myself. As per Lippmann, notice “objective is in quotes, and its like you skimmed over the phrase “media elite” entirely. Surely you realize a thorough discussion of Lippmann and Dewey isn’t possible in a paragraph? At least you have a better understanding of Dewey now.
I’ll “get off it,” when I feel like the political discourse in the country has risen to the level I feel most of us deserve and since its my blog, I can do what I want (and that’s discourse the way I define it, not the way you define it). When people ask me why you seem obsessed with me, I just tell them it must be love. Besos.
You’re right, I do. It’s amazing what one can learn when they are open to other possibilities. But saying that facts skew liberal is still a load of shit. I don’t actually think you belive it, but you did say it. And I can’t figure out which is worse - that you’d possibly be that stupid, or that you’d possibly be that desperate for attention.
Thanks for taking all the trouble to comment on how stupid you think I am. It must be nice to operate under the presumption that you are always right.
You just can’t get enough of me can you?
Fox “News” is not exactly the ingenue Michael Cassio of “Othello” fame, who cries, “Reputation, reputation, reputation! O, I have lost my reputation!” Though the completion of the line rings true, “What remains is bestial.”
Pleasant for most of us to see the crumbling of the empire: Diebold in bankruptcy; Fox in tatters with plummeting ratings (the only decent alternative I’ve found out there is Amy Goodman and Pacifica Network’s Democracy Now! http://democracynow.org/); and the Bush “Administration” falling apart before our eyes with the lowest ratings of a President for an extended period in history.
The specter (pun?) of subpoena is about to bring revelation that will offend anyone else left in the lunatic fringe who still supports these maniacs. Sid Blumenthal’s latest, “Follow the e-mails http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/03/29/attorney_firings/ tells of skullduggery in Rovian-Abramoff communications that is about to fly in their faces.
What is in those illegal, off-line White Haus communications will make Nixon blush. Will make the devil turn away for shame. I’m certain we are to hear very offensive “expletive deleted” slurs against the religious right, fiscal conservatives, the Pope, and just about everyone whose name isn’t Bush. Actually, George Bush. OK, George W. Bush. (And OK, perhaps the Pope deserves it. Though JP2 was against the war on Iraq as was just about everyone else in the world. http://lmno4p.org/articles_iraq.htm )
The best laid plans of rats and snakes…
So, did Murdoch use Chayefsky’s “Network” http://imdb.com/title/tt0074958/ for a model, or did Paddy create his own monster in the ‘76 film, parts of which (excluding all the Dunaway scenes) are some of the most memorable I’ve seen, where the weather is reported by Sybil the Soothsayer.
MtM, You could save pertinent articles in portable document file (PDF) format, then store them to a Web server for hyperlink reference. You would not be infringing on their copyright if you are using them for educational purposes, as in,
+=+=+=+
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
+=+=+=+
If you make any money off your blog this could not be a solution. But if otherwise, let me know and I’ll help you set it up. Will require a little more work on your part, but may be worth it to keep a public record.
But what of RGJ? I’ve been trying to find a way to get LV Review delivered to our home. I find RGJ nearly as slanted as Fox News. For example, during all of last year’s campaigns, every shot of a Republican was their professional portrait, while every front page photo of a Democrat was an ambient, unflattering outdoor shot. Brian H told me that’s because Republicans never go outside and do anything with the people. Good point, but let me tell you, very subliminally manipulating. Go back and look. Day after day after day.
We got New York Times for awhile. Damned expensive, but at least intellectually stimulating. But it won’t come to our door. Comes in the mail a few days hence. Quite disconcerting to read 3235 soldiers dead, when you know the number overnight had reached 3250.
This begs the question, Myrna. Do you want conversation, or do you want followers? If it’s truly conversation, then get honest already. You made a horrendous assertion with this post and I can’t let that go without calling it stupid. It’s not about you (though it might take a few years of trying to convince you of that), it’s about trying to make things better. You’re part of the problem and people read this place. It’s my self-appointed duty to make sure you’re called dishonest when you act dishonest. But again you’ve denigrated it to crying about my actions. Waah.
The other problem is you seem to be advocating a more subjective approach to news reporting rather than objective. Yet being subjective, in a way you don’t like, is the argument that you always make against Fox News being a legitimate news outlet. You can’t have it both ways.
I think the real truth is you want subjective news reporting only if it agrees with your political viewpoint, just like the folks on the other extreme side of the political fence.
Jerz…you’re on fire today…what crawled up you ass? It would seem from your comments here and on the Gleaner, that you don’t like what the ladies have to say today. I said to myself this morning after I read this post, Jerz’s gonna slam her for something, thanks for not disappointing. If you don’t like what she writes, then don’t read her blog. You’re too self-righteous dude and starting to sound like JLA.
One day, and I pray it happens soon, you’ll realize you are a HUGE part of the problem. But mostly, you’re just an insignificant troll. At least you’re convinced of your own intelligence. That’s got to make it easier out there in the world for you.
The Man, you apparently also have trouble with reading comprehension.
Love you both. Keep reading–I know you can’t stop yourselves.
The real feux news and the Main stream medias love afair with the gop
First the dominance of TV and Radio have caused profit seeking media outlets to value “TVQ” or “Personality” more than integrity, honesty, or any sort journalist qualifications. Also the trend to the syndicate columns by the same people erodes print media as well. A “Personality” may be functionally illiterate, they can have some an assistant write the column or a producer prepare the broadcast. “Journalism” now is more about appearance and branding then anything else.
Second, after years of Media consolidation the MSM is dominated large corporations that value money above all else most of whom themselves are run by republicans. These people hirer other Republicans or at the very least other apolitical profit seekers, not journalist’s. Truth is even the Republicans among them care little about politics, its more about income generation and maintaining the status quo than anything.
The result is that the MSM from a managerial level down to the ranks of the producers and “Journalists” is dominated by small minded simpletons that have been bought and paid for by major corporations.
The present day GOP is dominated by small minded, simpletons, owned by big money and fueled by a bigoted, self serving agenda.
They love and understand each other because they are cut from the same cloth. They are the same kind of people and in the case of Fox New,e.g. Rupert Murdock and Tony Snow, they are literally the same people.
Your welcome, Myrna. Yes, I’m a newspaper guy, but I’m trying to reform.
Journalists confuse objectivity with balance. Most reporters I know try to write balanced stories. The problem is that they will often end up making each side look equal when in reality they aren’t. Too many of them don’t follow the story to find the truth, especially if that truth impacts their sources.
Think about the Plame leak, and how you had journalists who had first-hand evidence of a crime (blowing cover of CIA agent) yet clammed up and said nothing. They knew this was a political hit, a crime, but the sought to hide the truth to protect the source, even though the real story would have been much bigger.
Call me a troll if you want. But saying whgat you said about facts being liberal is still bullshit, and you haven’t even attempted to defend it.
Nothing you accuse me of is worth defending…..at best, your arguments are illogical and ill-informed. At worst, they are hypocritical and perhaps even delusional
Kirk is a real journalist and understands that we have seen ample evidence of how being factual has become partisan–and uses one of the same examples I cited. Perhaps you should follow Kirk’s lead and get off your high horse.
Your inability to see past your dislike for me is the problem here. And it’s making you look like a bitter fool. If I was a troll, I’d have not addressed several things about the post that I took issue with. You took that as a personal attack - on a fake person no less - and have turned this into a battle between you and I. Wait, conflict! How very Lippmann of you. You’re wrong and misleading people with what you’ve asserted in this post. Care to answer why?
Jerz, I haven’t followed your issues much and skipping through these posts makes me wonder why you hang out here? Don’t tell me it’s because you want to represent “journalism” or whatever.
You seem intelligent enough, I’ve checked your blog out, but I’ve met more than enough woman-haters through work and otherwise to wonder. If I am wrong, forgive me. I hope all these passionate attacks aren’t because you can’t control Myrna the woman.
Myrna, when I first started reading your initial post regarding the Faux News and the Clinton folks, it made my mind wander back to a conspiracy thought, that the Faux News/Nevada Dem was a set up to get Clinton to win a GOP base away from Obama and everyone else. Yeah, I know, it’s just a theory …and now I will go have me a fine glass of Stormhoek Pintage.
NVmojo, I removed a sentence from your comment that I thought was too objectionable. Just so you know.
The attacks are on the ideas. And the assumptions of fact that myrna has tossed about. This argument about it being sexism is so completely ludicrous it makes me actually wonder why I’ve ever taken things seriously here. Are you guys for real?
I didn’t intially dislike you–it took months actually and a complete change in your behavior toward me and this blog. Its began when you became Reno’s self-appointed blog policeman (derived from what authority I’ll never know–its certainly not from your knowledge of journalism) and became perhaps the biggest hypocrite I have “met” so to speak.
Yeah, this was all about the argument:
“What a sham you have become to parrot some mantra you see the big boys shooting out and expecting people to not see through it. It’s just another lame attempt to try to discredit Fox, which might very well deserve it. But this argument has turned you into a completely thoughtless tool that continues to pump out the same conclusions about a tired subject. Get off it.”
I wonder why you spend so much time here too, so do others that contact me off blog. You should quit commenting here, in fact, you should quit reading altogether. I don’t read your blog anymore because I find it irrelevant. The only thing that makes you relevant to me are your hypocritical accusations in comments here. But maybe that’s what its all about….
I too wonder why Mr. Jerz spends so much time commenting on your blog rather than updating his own. I wondered why all of a sudden he ended up commenting on the Gleaner site rather than updating his own. I wonder why he spends so much time and thought arguing with you and Iron Jawed and why he lowers the discussion with personal attacks and self-righteous comments. I wonder why Jerz doesn’t bring more original topics into the discussion (that of a libertarian republican) rather than argue over the smallest details in someone else’s blog. Angry man syndrome? He was never weaned? Too much Old English too early in the day? And then I realized, he’s a grad student…young, courageous, and idealistic…and yet to discover what professionalism means. He is becoming as irrelevant as Abbinuts. Jerz, you seek to pull down others to elevate yourself, and that is just sad.
Thanks for posting! We love seeing comments like these!