NZ has four major free-to-air tv channels, one of these has the BBC world service on in the small hours (apx midight to 6am). I’m not a good sleeper so I have watched this for years and enjoy knowing what is going on on the awake side of the world while I attempt to sleep.
We also have a couple of UHF channels, until recently I couldn’t watch them because I lived in a bad reception place but I have just moved. When my 3am “arghhh I can’t sleep” moment hit last week I discovered I had more channels to twiddle through. One of them fills the small hours with Fox “News”.
I have become hopelessly addicted to this crap. The programming seems to be;
1)SPIN- Why Bush is better and let’s giggle at the guy who disagrees
2)CRAP- or is that "witty banter?
3)INANE GIGGLING (Ashley Simpson caused huge amounts of giggling last night…not that she didn’t deserve it but this is supposed to be NEWS)
4)SPIN- Bush, blah blah
5) SPIN
6)BIG HEADED BUFFOONS PRATTLING ABOUT THE STOCK MARKET- apparently all stocks will go down if Kerry wins and will be worth their weight in gold if Bush wins.
7)INANE CRAP-gotta love that “witty banter”
8)MORE GIGGLING
9)WEATHER DORK-He appears to giggle and do stupid stuff then breifly mentions the weather.
etc, etc, etc
(this is daytime broadcast for you Northen Hemisphere lot…maybe it gets “serious” in the evening??)
What is interesting is flipping between Fox and the BBC. When Margret Hassan was taken hostage in Iraq a couple of days ago, the BBC reported it as a news item. They provided details, spoke to a reporter in Iraq etc. All in typical emotionless BBC style. Meanwhile Fox was damn near screaming “THUGS” have struck again!!! No one doubts these people are thugs but is that a word that journalists should be shreeching? Does all the emotion add to conveying the news. It shows what they think about the news but does it help tell us what has happened?
That was a very long winded way of asking if Fox is seen as a serious news source? Or do people watch it for the same reason as I have for the last week…entertainment value. Is it just a big entertaining tabloid minus the page 3 girls?
American neo-conservatives love FOX because they can’t stand to listen to anyone with a different opinion. They love FOX for the same reason they love Rush Limbaugh- they need to be constantly reassured that they have the correct political beliefs. While they don’t seem to mind watching news with a blatant partisan spin, they have no trouble whatever crucifying legitimate journalists like Dan Rather for what they perceive as his bias.
I mentioned once before something I heard on ABC radio that supports your point exactly. The ABC are very serious about journalism and try to be very even-handed. Although they have a distinct anti-Howard bias, for instance, it is common for Liberal spokespeople to get a place on their forums.
At the start of the Iraqi war they convened a panel of media analysts to sort through the new trends in coverage (embedded journalists etc) and compare the coverage by different media (including the Moslem media). Not having seen any FOX News, I didn’t notice that they were never mentioned until one day a panelist mentioned something about their coverage.
The general tone of responses was “Yeah well that’s FOX but you can’t by any stretch of the imagination call it journalism”. They agreed that “it isn’t news it’s an entertainment package for people who know what they want to hear” and went back to ignoring FOX’s coverage.
I don’t recall any other criticism of a whole organisation.
I don’t get the BBC except for their internet site so I have nothing to compare it too but American “news” reports leave a lot to be desired. I’ve monitored all the major networks (including CNN) from time to time and IMO none of them keep any kind of journalist standards. CNN radio is probably the worst of the bunch if you’re limiting your criticism to politics.
It’s almost impossible to get any kind of straight, objective news in the United States. Simple stories get slanted with unnecessary adjectives and vocal quotations that have no place in reporting (unless personal qualifiers of opinion are added). Interviews are made of people who: have no qualifications to make the statement or are politically motivated toward their cause. Reporters will rush to the sight of a hurricane (every time) to make a dramatic presentation of how windy it is but will never go to ANWAR to present basic information on drilling for oil in Alaska.
I’m amazed at how many stories are created by news groups as examples of what messages they wish to convey. There is nothing that makes me cringe faster than some news “factoid” that is presented at the beginning of a program and is then followed by a segment that begins with “but is it really? We take you to…”. We are repeatedly fed news interviews with Lord and Lady 6-Pack about God-knows what. How did these people get interviewed? Did they just wander into the studio on a slow day? Are they qualified to comment on the subject? Is their opinion representative of the majority? No, No, and No. This is not news. This is not journalism. It’s pure entertainment presented as fact by people with an agenda.
You also may enjoy their flagship analysis prog Newsnight. When you look at it first it may seem like the interviewer is being very aggressive with his/her guest. That’s the style. They hold every and any side up to the same scrutiny.
Well, we need to bear in mind that the Fox networks are Murdoch TV. That should clue you in. But, if you can machete your way thru the thicket of spin, nationalistic cheerleading, and schoolboyish giggling at the misfortunes of others, you CAN find real news reporting in the news shows (specially if it’s something less-political, such as that a hurricane is coming). The commentary/analysis shows, though, are mostly on the OP model.
calm kiwi, evening (US Time) prime-time programming on Fox News is anchored by one hour of the exquisite Bill O’Reilly, he of the smug smirk and the hard blowing of the heated air he is filled with, of whom so much has been writ on these boards. He does term his show “The No-Spin Zone” which, to any jaded observer of the media, means you can expect the opposite – though to be fair, it’s not spin to the Republican view, it’s spin to the O’Reilly view, which is marginally less scary. But extraordinarily fascinating in that certain major-road-wreck sort of way.
At the nadir of Fox News, OTOH, is the weekend-morning (US time) “Fox and Friends” show, which defies intelligent analysis due to not only (a) being completely composed of the elements describes in the OP, without ANY pretense to the contrary whatsoever, but also (b) being hosted by the most pathetic, lame morning-show crew in the land, to the point sometimes I wonder if they just come in after having been up all night drinking.
Nice try. I don’t watch FOX because it has no journalistic credibility. I have no more obligation to watch FOX than conservatives do to read Al Franken.
