WTF is up with Fox News?

Cafe Society
1

Maybe this will end up in the pit, but it’s not my intention. I’m putting it in CS, because I want to understand.

Let me start by saying that I’m a former journalist, who haven’t worked as a reporter for over 10 years. I did my final internship at a big radio station in Chicago, and even if things change over time, and there is a cultural gap 'tween news in Europe and the US, I think I have a fair grasp on American media. Also, I’m a libertarian by the standards of my country, but would probably be a democrat in the US.

And I’m not starting this thread for the sake of ranting. There is enough of that going on in the Pit, with DtC and others leading the way. I’ve seen those threads and skimmed through them, but without a reference, they didn’t mean a lot.
Then, a couple of months ago, a local channel started re-broadcasting FoxNews, as a way of filling out their schedule. I think it’s some kind of international feed, because during the commercial breaks, there are endless weather forecasts for around the world (putting Berlin where Copenhagen is, BTW).
When I flip through channels, I sometimes stop. It’s always interesting to see how other media are reporting the same events.

Two things have cought my eye.

  1. They showed the results of a poll about GWB going to Iraq for Thanksgiving. Somewhat over 60% thought it was a good thing to do. Oh, ok. Wait a minute… The questions where framed like this (paraphrasing from memory): Was it good that the President went to Iraq for thanksgiving?
    Yes, it boosted the moral of the soldiers.
    No, it was too dangerous.

Of course they can make a poll whichever way they like, but no way GWB is gonna come out of a poll like that looking bad.

  1. Saddam. The backstory. A short montage of “Maybe the most brutal dictator in the history of the world.” Cross cut with b&w newsreels of Hitler from WWII, comparing what was done then and what SH has done for the past 20 years.

Now, SH was (is?) a bad-ass. An evil dictator, for sure. However, and by no means do I want to trivialize him, on par with Hitler, he ain’t. There was no shortage of brutal dictators during the 20th century and even if things, on a global scale, might be a bit better so far this century, SH is pretty much the average, run-of-the-mill Evil Dictator™. To try to make him out to be on par with Hitler is either trivializing all that happened 1933-45, or seriously re-writing history, to fit a sleek story and make it look good for tv.

So… Do people actually take Fox News seriously. For me, it’s a notch up from the supermarket tabloids (“Baby born with wooden leg”) but a far cry from what I’d consider even normal sensationalist news. It’s so transparent and it’s dumbing down the news in a way I’ve never seen on CNN, ABC, CBS or NBC. Even SkyNews, which has the same owner, is a lot better, which leads me to believe there is some kind of marketing strategy behind how they do the news.
So what’s the target group?
And even though I can feel that the reporting is slanted in favor of the current administration, I’d cringe if I were a republican, for the clear idiocy in the reporting. So, if any GOPer reads this, do you think it’s good reporting?

Then again, my politics is sure to make me biased, and I might not have seen enough to make an informed judgement.

2

The market for FoxNews is conservatives, primarily Republicans. While the special reports you’ve seen on Saddam compared him to Hitler, you should also realize that the channel is trying to sell a story. A lot of news, dare I say “most”, is hype.

Yeah, the channel does slant to the right and at the moment they are capitalizing on that market that sometimes feels fed up with how the other news stations seem to lean to the left when it comes to reporting the news.

3

Honestly the slant is quite apparent to the right. But it is so pleasant to actually here news that ends on a positive slant. With CNN and MSNBC I usually get the feel the story works like this.
Anchor fires it off > Reporter gives background information > Current data > then the big *BUT[/] > End on negative note.

The big BUT often takes the cake in dominence of the coverage. Like today in Iraq such and such happened, BUT outside groups think failure is immeniant. Granted the “outside groups” exist, but their mere mention based on pure existance doesn’t seem to substantiate their validity.

This constant barrage, story after story, from pretty face anchors drys me out.

4

Oh curses to the typo monster.

5

The simplest answer to the OP is that an amazing number of people in this country don’t understand that the …BUT… is exactly what makes a report news rather than propaganda.

It appears to be a source of much comfort to many to hear their own side’s propaganda. This is true at all levels of news, in all media, from national reporting to local events.

6

Fox News “does slant to the right” in the sense that Lenin had “leftist tendencies.” Their bias is so blatant it’s comical, or at least it would be if no one took it seriously. Unfortunately, it’s insanely popular. I’m a little bit relieved to hear my more right-wing friends call it a “guilty pleasure” and concede that it’s not to be taken 100% seriously; I get the impression that even the most gullible viewers can sense the propaganda leaking in.

I tell myself that it isn’t the right-wing tendencies that bug me so much (although that’s probably not entirely true), but that they make no pretense of objectivity.

For example, take the recent story of humanitarian aid sent to Bam in Iran after their devastating earthquake. CNN reported on the death toll, showed scenes of the wreckage and grieving citizens of the town, and said “Over 20 nations have delivered humanitarian aid to Iran, including the U.S.” On Fox, they led with the death toll (they reported a higher figure than CNN), then went on to say how President Bush has promised to deliver aid to the country even though it is on the list of the “Axis of Evil” nations. More footage of the wreckage, then another mention of the Axis of Evil and how President Bush is delivering aid to the country anyway. Every story is given the most pro-Bush, pro-US (in that order) spin possible.

Now, I have to concede that it’s good the channel is out there, because it reminds people that all of news sources – the US-based ones, anyway – are biased. And that we live in an age of News As Entertainment first, with journalistic integrity a distant second. I’ve been hearing people claim for years that CNN has a blatant left-wing bias, but I’ve never seen it – either it’s too subtle, or I’m too left-wing to be able to detect it. So I guess that it’s good that Fox is there for contrast. Or something.

But I can’t watch the channel for more than 5 minutes without getting spitting mad.

7

I like to listen to Michael Medved and Michael Savage to get my blood up. At the top of every hour, they run the Fox Radio News feed. One day, I remember hearing a report on there that purchases of “Big Ticket Items” were up 4 percent or whatever.
Thing is, earlier in the day, I had heard on NPR that orders for “Durable Goods” were up 4 percent. “Big Ticket Items”, to me at least, implies stuff like Plasma Screen TVs and what not, where “Durable Goods” implies tractors, combines, and factory machinery.
By calling durable goods big ticket items, they imply that the economy is doing far better than it really is. Individual consumers buy big ticket items, and industrial consumers buy “Durable goods.”

I remember screaming “DURABLE F-----G GOODS!” over and over at my radio. I hate Fox news.

8

In the United States if you are of a liberal persuasion then you have ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and PBS to get your news from. Fox News is the only source for news told from a conservative viewpoint.

A couple of you used the words “anger” and “hate” to describe your reaction to Fox News. I have a similar reaction when I hear NPR.

I recently finished reading Bill O’Reilly’s “Who’s Looking Out For You?”, and I noted something that liberal and conservative journalists have in common: a desire to change the world through their reporting. Silly me! And I thought journalists were supposed to report the news. That little news ticker at the bottom of the screen on Bloomberg would suffice for me. No room for editorial content.

(I understand that the BBC has banned reference to Saddam Hussein as ‘dictator’. He is to be referred to as the “deposed former president”. Are they trying to use neutral language, I wonder, or are they betraying their own slant?)

9

The second-scariest fact is that Fox News is so tightly wedded to the current Administration, they coordinate government acts with Fox programming (such as the recent judicial filibuster, where Bill Frist wanted the Republicans to enter the Capitol just as Brit Hume’s program started)

The absolutely scariest fact is that the populace hasn’t risen up in disgust at this blatant propaganda.

10

Ok…welcome to the Boards, DogsLunch.
That finished, I can ask you. I gave an explanation (however muddled) of why I hate Fox News. Care to give an example of why you hate NPR?

And, from what I understand, the BBC has to present both sides of a story, otherwise they will lose their government license. If you want balanced news, the BBC is where you should go. I would say that “deposed former president” is a neutral way of referring to Mr. Hussein. If you want propaganda, by all means, use the Bush News Agency. But if you want “journalism,” go somewhere else.

11

Just had to say that this sentence in the OP made me cough up a little of my morning OJ onto the keyboard.:slight_smile:

12

Another ( trivial ) thing I cannot understand about Fox News is that everybody seems to SHOUT. Why can’t they speak at a normal volume level ?. Maybe it is an American thing as Fox is the only domestic news channel that we can receive here in the UK , but CNNI reporters and newscasters talk in a normal voice . Perhaps I am used to the more measured and somber tone of our own news presenters from the BBC , ITN or Sky.

13

That’s what you get for not drinking scotch like the rest of us cynical bastards.

And I have to take issue with this…

DL, I’m a former newsie (and still in the media). And this is just wrong wrong wrong.

Even on a crawl that small it’s possible to effect the perception of a story in an incredibly strong way. Hell, just choosing to RUN a story on that crawl is an influential decision.

Trust me on this one.

14

I also think of myself as a libertarian, but I was shocked to find Dean, Clark, and Sharpton so much higher than “Libertarian candidate” on my Presidential selector. Maybe I belong in Sweden.

15

I’m as liberal as they come, but I’ll give myself a small dose of Fox News daily just to hear opposing points of view. But the BEST reason to watch Fox: The Fox News Babes!

16

Internet quizzes will thus be the death of rational thought.

17

Really? I disagree. The very thing that bugs me about it is the way they make every effort possible to pretend they’re objective, when they really see themselves as a counterpoint to the other networks, which are supposedly left-wing. Their slogans used to be “Fair and Balanced” and “We Report, You Decide” (lampooned by Gary Trudeau as “We Decide, You Concur”).

And I would also like to know why DogsLunch hates NPR. Can you give examples of editorial decisions by NPR that are on par with what the OP describes, DogsLunch?

18

Just to address the thing about my own poltics: Being fiscally conservative, but very liberal on social issues, puts me ina libertarian fold over here. Put the political scale is skewed. There is only one party who (silently) opposes the right to free abortion. The conservative party goes by the name [paraphrased] “The Moderates” and have an official stanmce of being, and I quote: “The only liberal and conservative party in Sweden”. Let’s just say that from an American viewpoint, I’d probably be considered dem or liberal, but in Sweden, I’m quite far to the right, on the normal political spectrum.

I don’t care if Fox News is slanted. What upsets me is that it’s so badly done. Obejectivity is a joke in any media. A lot of news sources like to pretend (for the public and even themselves) that they are objective, but the simple fact of picking a particular story to lead sets the agenda, and someone makes that decision.
That’s one reason I seek out widely different news sources, and another reason I read op-ed’s, since I know of the agenda and can filter it through my own views.
The slant is blatant, but the slanting is very poorly made.

As for CNN. Isn’t it stilled owned by Turner? And isn’t he quite far to the right. I remember him being chummy with Falwell, but I might be mistaken.

19

Sometimes in order to solve a problem you have to go to the source. This is the truest in this thread…

THAT IS HOW FOX ALWAYS IS

Does anyone watch any local fox news broadcasts? I am not sure, but where I live they do not take their job seriously. Sometimes the anchors are almost comical. They dance and laugh, sometimes sing, and mostly they bash the hell out of each other with some witty insults. Am I the only one who thinks that Fox is like this… whatever this is… on all levels?

(Case in point… although its a dif thread entirely… Fox cancels Family Guy and how much did they sell this holiday season with the Season 1 DVD?)

20

Very mistaken. No right winger would give billions of dollars to the UN. And most right-wingers I know would show far more religious tolerance than Mr. Turner has.

He was forced to apologize again, a couple of years ago, for dressing down a young female employee, calling her a Jesus freak and a religious wacko and humiliating her in front of all of their coworkers. Her offense, if you could call it that, was wearing ashes on her forehead on Ash Wednesday.

Cite helpfully provided: http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/turner010308.html

My personal feeling is that objectivity is a myth. CNN has a bias. CBS has a bias. NPR has a glaring one. Fox News does as well.

If you watch the analysis and discussion programs, Fox News does a better job scheduling liberal guests and presenting a genuine discussion than the other networks do at scheduling conservative guests and getting a good argument going. I feel this is their real strength, and is the bulk of Fox News programming I watch.