Having shed much of his dignity, core convictions and reputation for straight talk, Senator John McCain won his primary on Tuesday against the flat-earth wing of his party. Now McCain can go search for his lost character, which was last on display late in his 2008 campaign for president.
Remember the moment: a woman with matted hair and a shaky voice rose to express her doubts about Barack Obama. “I have read about him,” she said, “and he’s not — he’s an Arab.”
McCain was quick to knock down the lie. “No, ma’am,” he said, “he’s a decent family man, a citizen.”
That ill-informed woman — her head stuffed with fabrications that could be disproved by a pre-schooler — now makes up a representative third or more of the Republican party. It’s not just that 46 percent of Republicans believe the lie that Obama is a Muslim, or that 27 percent in the party doubt that the president of the United States is a citizen. But fully half of them believe falsely that the big bailout of banks and insurance companies under TARP was enacted by Obama, and not by President Bush.
Take a look at Tuesday night’s box score in the baseball game between New York and Toronto. The Yankees won, 11-5. Now look at the weather summary, showing a high of 71 for New York. The score and temperature are not subject to debate.
Yet a president’s birthday or whether he was even in the White House on the day TARP was passed are apparently open questions. A growing segment of the party poised to take control of Congress has bought into denial of the basic truths of Barack Obama’s life. What’s more, this astonishing level of willful ignorance has come about largely by design, and has been aided by a press afraid to call out the primary architects of the lies.
The Democrats may deserve to lose in November. They have been terrible at trying to explain who they stand for and the larger goal of their governance. But if they lose, it should be because their policies are unpopular or ill-conceived — not because millions of people believe a lie.
In the much-discussed Pew poll reporting the spike in ignorance, those who believe Obama to be Muslim say they got their information from the media. But no reputable news agency — that is, fact-based, one that corrects its errors quickly — has spread such inaccuracies.
So where is this “media?” Two sources, and they are — no surprise here — the usual suspects. The first, of course, is Rush Limbaugh, who claims the largest radio audience in the land among the microphone demagogues, and his word is Biblical among Republicans. A few quick examples of the Limbaugh method:
“Tomorrow is Obama’s birthday — not that we’ve seen any proof of that,” he said on Aug. 3. “They tell us Aug. 4 is the birthday; we haven’t seen any proof of that.”
Of course, there is proof as clear as that baseball box score. Look here, www.factcheck.org, for starters, one of many places posting Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate.
On the Muslim deception, Limbaugh has sprinkled lie dust all over the place. “Obama says he’s a Christian, but where’s the evidence?” he said on Aug. 19. He has repeatedly called the president “imam Obama,” and said, “I’m just throwing things out there, folks, because people are questioning his Christianity.”
You see how he works. He drops in suggestions, hints, notes that “people are questioning” things. The design is to make Obama un-American. Then he says it’s a tweak, a provocation. He says this as a preemptive way to keep the press from calling him out. And it works; long profiles of Limbaugh have largely gone easy on him.
Once Limbaugh has planted a lie, a prominent politician can pick it up, with little nuance. So, over the weekend, Kim Lehman, one of Iowa’s two Republican National Committee members, went public with doubts on Obama’s Christianity. Of course, she was not condemned by party leaders.
It’s curious, also, that any felon, drug addict, or recovering hedonist can loudly proclaim a sudden embrace of Jesus and be welcomed without doubt by leaders of the religious right. But a thoughtful Christian like Obama is still distrusted.
“I am a devout Christian,” Obama told Christianity Today in 2008. “I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” That’s not enough, apparently, for Rev. Franklin Graham, the partisan son of the great evangelical leader, who said last week that Obama was “born a Muslim because of the religious seed passed on from his father.”
Actually, he was born from two non-practicing parents, and his Kenyan father was absent for all of his upbringing. Obama came to his Christianity like millions of people, through searching and questioning.
Finally, there is Fox News, whose parent company has given $1 million to Republican causes this year but still masquerades as a legitimate source of news. Their chat and opinion programs spread innuendo daily. The founder of Politifact, another nonpartisan referee to the daily rumble, said two of the site’s five most popular items on its Truth-o-meter are corrections of Glenn Beck.
Beck tosses off enough half-truths in a month to keep Politifact working overtime. Of late, he has gone after Michelle Obama, whose vacation in Spain was “just for her and approximately 40 of her friends.” Limbaugh had a similar line, saying the First Lady “is taking 40 of her best friends and leasing 60 rooms at a five-star hotel — paid for by you.”
The White House said Michelle Obama and her daughter Sasha were accompanied by just a few friends — and they paid their own costs. But, wink, wink, the damage is done. He’s Muslim and foreign. She’s living the luxe life on your dime. They don’t even have to mention race. The code words do it for them.
Climate-change denial is a special category all its own. Once on the fringe, dismissal of scientific consensus is now an article of faith among leading Republicans, again taking their cue from Limbaugh and Fox.
It would be nice to dismiss the stupid things that Americans believe as harmless, the price of having such a large, messy democracy. Plenty of hate-filled partisans swore that Abraham Lincoln was a Catholic and Franklin Roosevelt was a Jew. So what if one-in-five believe the sun revolves around the earth, or aren’t sure from which country the United States gained its independence?
But false belief in weapons of mass-destruction led the United States to a trillion-dollar war. And trust in rising home value as a truism as reliable as a sunrise was a major contributor to the catastrophic collapse of the economy. At its worst extreme, a culture of misinformation can produce something like Iran, which is run by a Holocaust denier.
It’s one thing to forget the past, with predictable consequences, as the favorite aphorism goes. But what about those who refuse to comprehend the present?
Showing posts with label Fox News Channel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fox News Channel. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Building a Nation of Know-Nothings
In the August 25, 2010 New York Times editorial "Building a Nation of Know-Nothings," Timothy Egan suggests that in the consideration of politics, many people are willfully ignorant of the truth.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Fox News dominates the ratings.
In the December 30, 2009 article "Fox News Channel establishes ratings dominance over rivals in 2009," Brett Michael Dykes reports that Fox broadcasts the ten most popular cable news programs:
Love 'em or loathe 'em, and there seems to be little in between, 2009 was a remarkable year for Fox News Channel. Despite being ensnared in seemingly weekly controversies involving accusations that its coverage of the Obama administration was laced with right-wing political bias, the year-end numbers are in, and they show Fox News establishing dominance over rivals CNN and MSNBC. In short, 2009 was the best year in the network's 13-year history.
According to Nielsen, the ten-most-watched cable news shows in 2009 were all Fox News programs. With conservative-leaning opinion shows like "The O'Reilly Factor," "Hannity," and "Glenn Beck" leading the way, Fox News' average daily prime time viewership rose 8 percent in the coveted 25-54 demographic from its 2008 level. Also, the network's straight news programs, "Special Report with Bret Baier," "The Fox Report with Shepard Smith," "Studio B with Shepard Smith," and "Your World with Neil Cavuto," all scored their best years ever in 2009. In fact, every single show on the network saw a double-digit increase in ratings from 2008 in the 25-54 demographic.
Meanwhile, CNN, which has been positioning itself lately as cable news' voice of objectivity, and MSNBC, which has recently moved a bit further to the left, struggled comparatively in 2009. For the first time in its history, CNN ranked third in the 25-54 cable news prime time demographic, down 9 percent from 2008, while MSNBC dropped 3 percent in the same category but gained the second-place slot. Additionally, CNN and MSNBC ranked 23rd and 24th among all cable networks in total prime time viewership, while Fox News finished third overall behind only USA Network and ESPN.
Fox News' apparent rout in the 2009 cable news ratings race defies the expectations of media watchdogs and critics like Media Matters' Eric Boehlert, who predicted a "very rough" road for the network after charging that it had become a "broadcast partner with the (Bush) White House." The thinking behind most predictions of Fox News' demise was that the country's ideological shift to the left would cause the network to shed viewers.
"The point is that Fox News years ago made an obvious decision to appeal almost exclusively to Republican viewers," Boehlert wrote. "The good news then for Fox News was that it succeeded. The bad news now for Fox News is that it succeeded."
While predictions of its demise fell short, Fox News did weather numerous public relations storms in 2009. The network garnered stinging criticism on everything from Glenn Beck calling President Obama a racist and relentlessly promoting gold as an investment while working as paid spokesperson for a company that sells gold, to Sean Hannity altering footage of a conservative rally, to President Obama charging that the network was "entirely devoted to attacking" his administration.
Beck particularly enjoyed a meteoric rise to prominence on the national stage in 2009, partially by establishing himself as a bit of a political organizer of the "Tea Party" movement. An increasingly polarizing figure, a recent Gallup poll placed Beck fourth among the most admired men by Americans, trailing only President Obama, former President George W. Bush and South African leader Nelson Mandela. Media Matters, however, recently bestowed Beck with the dubious distinction of being 2009's "Misinformer of the Year."
Irrespective of the broad spectrum of opinions about the channel and its on-air personalities, Fox News scored a ratings bonanza in 2009, a ratings bonanza that appears to prove that being the voice of the opposition is actually much better for business than a lot of people thought it would be.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Fox News - the subtle altering of reality to sell a preconceived narrative?
On the Thursday, November 12, 2009 broadcast of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, Jon Stewart implied that the Fox network is far from fair and balanced:
The previous night, Sean Hannity acknowledged the “inadvertent mistake” that had been caught by one of The Daily Show‘s producers.
Stewart suggests the mistake was not accidental, but part of systematic and intentional deception designed to rally viewers behind favored causes. Stewart seems to imply that other networks may have biases, but they are not as extensive, coordinated, and intentional as those on Fox. The network defends distortions on many of its programs, such as Hannity's, by claiming the shows are widely acknowledged (even by Fox) to be opinion-based.
People of all political persuasions may cling to opinions that support a current perspective and ignore facts that contradict it. The human brain seems to prefer to fit new information into an existing belief system. In the 2008 book, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, behavioral economist Dan Ariely explains that people have an irrational tendency to overvalue things they own, including ideas. This can make people reluctant to let go of a preexisting belief, even when provided with substantial contradictory information.
Ariely suggests people will make better individual and social choices if they acknowledge these biases and try to limit their impact. People might benefit by using diverse sources of news rather than limiting their exposure to the information they want to hear.
Related articles:
Click here for a Chicago Tribune article linked to the video discussed above.
An October 29, 2009 report by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press concludes that Fox News is Viewed as the Most Ideological Network.
But, of course, that was just one big story from cable news last night. There was another story – one that actually concerns our humble program here.
On Tuesday night, we did a little bit about Sean Hannity’s program, or to call it by its official name `the greatest program that has ever given to a people by God.’
It concerned the Super Bowl of Freedom that Michele Bachmann sponsored on Capitol Hill.
On Sean’s show, Mr. Hannity and Ms. Bachmann discussed her rally and for no apparent reason then started showing images of Glenn Beck’s much better attended 9/12 rally, not acknowledging that the footage was different, but in fact commenting on how robust the crowd was, even though Bachman’s rally took place on a sunny day in fall and this rally appeared to take place on a cloudy day in summer.
So, we thought that was funny because we finally had a literal manifestation of what we feel is the metaphorical methodology of the entire Fox network, which, of course, is the subtle altering of reality to sell a preconceived narrative.
The previous night, Sean Hannity acknowledged the “inadvertent mistake” that had been caught by one of The Daily Show‘s producers.
Stewart suggests the mistake was not accidental, but part of systematic and intentional deception designed to rally viewers behind favored causes. Stewart seems to imply that other networks may have biases, but they are not as extensive, coordinated, and intentional as those on Fox. The network defends distortions on many of its programs, such as Hannity's, by claiming the shows are widely acknowledged (even by Fox) to be opinion-based.
People of all political persuasions may cling to opinions that support a current perspective and ignore facts that contradict it. The human brain seems to prefer to fit new information into an existing belief system. In the 2008 book, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, behavioral economist Dan Ariely explains that people have an irrational tendency to overvalue things they own, including ideas. This can make people reluctant to let go of a preexisting belief, even when provided with substantial contradictory information.
Ariely suggests people will make better individual and social choices if they acknowledge these biases and try to limit their impact. People might benefit by using diverse sources of news rather than limiting their exposure to the information they want to hear.
Related articles:
Click here for a Chicago Tribune article linked to the video discussed above.
An October 29, 2009 report by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press concludes that Fox News is Viewed as the Most Ideological Network.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Fox News: Opinions are Expressed Throughout Its Programming
Media Matters for America says Fox News is a full-time political operation, providing editorial opinions even on shows they claim to be unbiased news.
The watchdog group posted the video "Fox News: A 24/7 Political Operation" on YouTube to show how many of the opinions expressed in the editorial portions of the cable channel's broadcasting are echoed in the programs that are allegedly news.
According to an October 20, 2009 press release:
The watchdog group posted the video "Fox News: A 24/7 Political Operation" on YouTube to show how many of the opinions expressed in the editorial portions of the cable channel's broadcasting are echoed in the programs that are allegedly news.
According to an October 20, 2009 press release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
CONTACT
Jess Levin (202) 772-8162
jlevin@mediamatters.org
Washington, D.C. - Today, after Fox News responded to White House criticism with the demonstrably false defense that, unlike the network's "editorial" programs, its "news" programs are straight and objective, Media Matters for America released a video demonstrating that Fox News' dayside programming unquestionably echoes the tones, themes, and content of its evening opinion programming. In fact, the parallels are so clear that the network's daytime anchors often seem to be taking direct marching orders from their colleagues like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
WATCH VIDEO HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRx5ethd8JU
BACKGROUND:
Fox News has responded to White House criticisms of its network by claiming that while its "editorial" programs are filled with "vibrant opinion," its news hours are straight and objective. However, Fox News' purportedly straight news programs often echo its "editorial" programs and feature smears, falsehoods, doctored and deceptive editing, and GOP talking points. Examples include:
*Hemmer advances smear that Jennings knew of "statutory rape" and "never reported it." During the October 1 edition of America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer joined his network's smears against Department of Education official Kevin Jennings by claiming that Jennings knew of a "statutory rape" case involving a student but "never reported it." In fact, as Media Matters has confirmed, the student in question was of legal age of consent at the time he was counseled by Jennings.
*Baier smears Jennings as failing to report "sexual abuse." On October 1, host Bret Baier joined Fox News' witch hunt against Jennings, claiming that "Education Secretary Arne Duncan is standing behind his so-called safe schools czar after revelations that Kevin Jennings did not report a case of sexual abuse he encountered as a schoolteacher."
*Kelly on Sotomayor comment: "sounds to a lot of people like reverse racism." On May 26, Megyn Kelly joined conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh by stating that then-Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark "sounds to a lot of people like reverse racism, basically. Like she's saying that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges, and that that's her assumption, and people get worried about putting a person like that on the U.S. Supreme Court." Kelly later added, "I've looked at the entire speech that she was offering to see if that was taken out of context, and I have to tell you ... it wasn't." In fact, Sotomayor was specifically discussing the importance of diversity in adjudicating race and sex discrimination cases; several conservative legal figures have made similar comments.
*America's Newsroom promotes tea party organizing info on-air and online. America's Newsroom encouraged viewers to get involved with April 15 "tea party" protests across the country, which Fox News had described as primarily a response to President Obama's fiscal policies. The program frequently hosted tea party organizers and posted on-screen organizing information such as protest dates and locations. America's Newsroom also repeatedly directed viewers to its website, which featured a list of tea party protests.
*America's Newsroom promotes czar hysteria with ominous music. On September 7, Kelly teased a segment on whether the so-called "mainstream media" was ignoring "questionable backgrounds of some of the other 30-some-odd czars" in the Obama administration while ominous music played in the background.
*"Death book" distortions abound on Fox News Sunday. On the August 23 edition of Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace hosted former Bush administration aide Jim Towey to discuss his Wall Street Journal op-ed, "The Death Book for Veterans," and in doing so promoted numerous distortions about an end-of-life educational booklet used by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). In addition to forwarding the smear that the booklet is a "death book," Wallace promoted Towey's distortion that the booklet encourages veterans to "pull the plug" -- it doesn't; Wallace and Towey both suggested that the Bush administration suspended use of the booklet -- it didn't; and Wallace claimed that a VHA document requires doctors to direct veterans to the booklet -- it doesn't.
Media Matters president Eric Burns recently explained on Countdown with Keith Olbermann: "I think that what we have all thought of as a conservative news organization has really morphed itself this year into a 24/7 political operation with a very specific goal. And that is to destroy this presidency, and destroy any sort of progressive policy agenda that the American people voted for in November."
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Fox News Viewed as Most Ideological Network
In the October 29, 2009 report "Fox News Viewed as Most Ideological Network," the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press says the Fox News Channel is perceived as having a large conservative bias, but other news services are viewed as mostly liberal.The Fox News Channel is viewed by Americans in more ideological terms than other television news networks. And while the public is evenly divided in its view of hosts of cable news programs having strong political opinions, more Fox News viewers see this as a good thing than as a bad thing.
Nearly half of Americans (47%) say they think of Fox News as “mostly conservative,” 14% say it is “mostly liberal,” and 24% say it is “neither in particular.” Opinion about the ideological orientation of other TV news outlets is more mixed: while many view CNN and the three broadcast networks as mostly liberal, about the same percentages say they are neither in particular. However, somewhat more say MSNBC is mostly liberal than say it is neither in particular, by 36% to 27%.
The perceptions of those who regularly tune into these news networks are similar to those of the public. Nearly half (48%) of regular Fox viewers say the network is mostly conservative. About four-in-ten (41%) regular viewers of CNN describe the network as mostly liberal and 36% of regular MSNBC viewers say the same about that network.
The latest weekly News Interest Index survey, conducted October 23-26 among 1,001 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, also shows that Americans followed news about the spread of the swine flu and the availability of a vaccine more closely than any other major news story last week. And the percentage of Americans saying they followed swine flu news very closely (43%) now matches the highest levels of interest reached during the previous flu outbreak in May.
The survey also finds the public is evenly split in its view of cable news hosts “having strong opinions about politics.” About four-in-ten (42%) see this as a good thing while an identical percentage sees it as a bad thing. By 51% to 36%, regular Fox News viewers view cable hosts with strong political opinions as a good thing; regular viewers of other TV news outlets are more evenly divided over opinionated cable news hosts.
More Fox Viewers See Other Networks as Liberal
The perception of Fox News as mostly conservative is shared equally by regular Fox News viewers and regular viewers of other TV news networks. Half of regular CNN viewers see the Fox News Channel as mostly conservative, as do 48% its own viewers, 48% of regular MSNBC viewers and 45% of the regular viewers of national nightly network news on ABC, NBC and CBS.
By contrast, regular Fox News viewers are more likely than those who tune into other news networks to see those networks as mostly liberal. For instance, 50% of regular Fox News viewers say NBC News is mostly liberal, compared with only about third of regular viewers of CNN (35%), MSNBC (31%) and the nightly network news (34%). There are comparable differences between how Fox News viewers and other news audiences see the ideologies of CBS News and ABC News.
Nearly half of Fox News viewers also say that CNN (49%) and MSNBC (47%) are mostly liberal. However, nearly as many CNN viewers (41%) say that network is mostly liberal; similarly, 43% of regular MSNBC viewers say that network is mostly liberal.
Views of the networks’ ideologies also differ greatly by personal ideology. More than half of liberals (57%) say Fox News is mostly conservative, compared with 46% of moderates and 44% of conservatives.
By contrast, 48% of conservatives say that MSNBC is mostly liberal, compared with 31% of moderates and 29% of liberals. These are similar to views of CNN: 51% of conservatives say the network is mostly liberal, while 33% of moderates and 28% of liberals agree. There are comparable ideological differences in perceptions of the ideologies of NBC News, ABC News and CBS News.
Click the image to enlarge it.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Fox News blurs the distinction between news and opinion
Critics of Fox News claim the organization does not distinguish between the ideas expressed in its news and editorial programs. An October 20, 2009 video prepared by the liberal watchdog group Media Matters For America shows that opinions from Fox's editorial programs are repeated and reported on its news shows that it claims are "fair and balanced."
Monday, October 12, 2009
Fox argues that its news hours — 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays — are objective.
In the October 12, 2009 New York Times article "Fox’s Volley With Obama Intensifying," Brian Stelter reports that the Obama administration resents the Fox News Channel's blending of news and opinion programming into persistent partisan attacks on whatever its does.
Attacking the news media is a time-honored White House tactic but to an unusual degree, the Obama administration has narrowed its sights to one specific organization, the Fox News Channel, calling it, in essence, part of the political opposition.
“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, in a telephone interview on Sunday. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”
Her comments are only the latest in the volatile exchange between the administration and the top-rated network, which is owned by the News Corporation, controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Last month, Roger Ailes, the chairman of Fox News, and David Axelrod, a senior adviser to President Obama, met for coffee in New York, in what Politico, which last week broke that news, labeled a “Fox summit.”
While neither party has said what was discussed, some have speculated that a truce, or at least an adjustment in tone, was at issue. (Mr. Ailes and Mr. Obama reportedly reached a temporary accord after a meeting in mid-2008.) But shots are still being fired, which animates the idea that both sides see benefits in the feud.
Fox seems to relish the controversy.
“Instead of governing, the White House continues to be in campaign mode, and Fox News is the target of their attack mentality,” Michael Clemente, the channel’s senior vice president for news, said in a statement on Sunday. “Perhaps the energy would be better spent on the critical issues that voters are worried about.”
Fox’s senior vice president for programming, Bill Shine, says of the criticism from the White House, “Every time they do it, our ratings go up.” Mr. Obama’s first year is on track to be the Fox News Channel’s highest rated.
One Fox executive said that the jabs by the White House could solidify the network’s audience base and recalled that Mr. Ailes had remarked internally: “Don’t pick a fight with people who like to fight.” The executive asked not to be named while discussing internal conversations.
Certainly, Fox continues to aggressively bolster its on-air talent, most recently with the hiring of John Stossel, the libertarian investigative journalist from ABC News, for its spin-off channel, Fox Business. The business channel is also keen on another administration critic, Lou Dobbs, who met for dinner with Mr. Ailes last month, according to two people with direct knowledge of the meeting.
The shift for Fox News — the favorite network of the Bush administration, now the least favored one of the Obama administration — has financial implications for the News Corporation, especially given the network’s status as a growth engine in a perilous time for media companies.
Fox’s programs have drawn record numbers of viewers this year. Through last week, Fox averaged 1.2 million viewers at any given time this year, up from one million viewers through the same time last year. Previously, the channel peaked in 2003, the year the Iraq war started, with nearly 1.1 million viewers.
But controversial comments by the host Glenn Beck have also prompted an ad boycott. And the perception of Fox News as an opposition party has also affected its news correspondents, including Major Garrett, its chief White House correspondent, who Ms. Dunn says is a fair reporter. Mr. Garrett and other Fox correspondents have been directed by Mr. Clemente not to appear on the channel’s most opinionated programs.
Still, Paul Rittenberg, who oversees ad sales for Fox, said the channel existed in a climate where viewers choose cable news channels based on affinity. His channel, he said, stresses in its pitch to advertisers that “people who watch Fox News believe it’s the home team.”
To many Democrats, of course, the “home team” is conservative, a view only compounded by Fox’s at times skeptical coverage of Mr. Obama this year.
“I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration,” he said in June, though he did not mention Fox by name. He added, “You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.”
The White House has limited administration members’ appearances on the network in recent weeks. In mid-September, when the White House booked Mr. Obama on a round robin of Sunday morning talk shows, it skipped Fox and called it an “ideological outlet,” leading the “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace to appear on Bill O’Reilly’s prime-time show and call the administration “the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.”
Ms. Dunn called that remark juvenile and stressed that administration officials would still talk to Fox, and that Mr. Obama was likely to be interviewed on the network in the future. But, she added, “we’re not going to legitimize them as a news organization.”
In an interview, Mr. Clemente suggested that there was an element of “shoot the messenger” in the back and forth. “Sometimes it’s actually helpful to have an organization or a person that you can go up against for whatever reason,” he said.
Fox argues that its news hours — 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays — are objective. The channel has taken pains recently to highlight its news programs, including the two hours led by Shepard Smith, its chief news anchor. And its daytime newscasts draw more viewers than CNN or MSNBC’s prime-time programs.
“The average consumer certainly knows the difference between the A section of the newspaper and the editorial page,” Mr. Clemente said.
The White House rejects the news and editorial page comparison, and officials there can rattle off any number of perceived offenses. They date to the month before Mr. Obama formally started his presidential campaign, when one of the network’s morning hosts falsely claimed that he had attended a madrassa, an Islamic school. (The incident happened on what Fox calls an entertainment show, “Fox and Friends”; the mistake was corrected on the air later.)
More recently, Fox hosts have promoted tea party rallies against big government and steered attention toward a number of White House czar appointments. Mr. Beck, in particular, was credited with forcing Van Jones, a low-level White House adviser for environmental jobs, to resign last month. Mr. Beck devoted numerous segments to Mr. Jones and called him a “communist-anarchist radical.”
“If it wasn’t for Fox or talk radio, we’d be done as a republic,” Mr. Beck said in the wake of the resignation.
Mr. Beck, whose 5 p.m. program consistently draws three million viewers, is a “cultural phenomenon now,” Mr. Shine said. But this success has come at a price: he is the source of considerable discomfort for Fox’s journalists, especially for false statements on his program. In August, for instance, Mr. Beck claimed that Mr. Garrett was “never called on” at White House press briefings, but Mr. Garrett had asked a question that day.
Weeks earlier, Mr. Beck labeled Mr. Obama a racist, leading to an advertising boycott by ColorOfChange.org, an advocacy group that Mr. Jones helped found. Dozens of advertisers have distanced themselves from Mr. Beck’s show, causing headaches for Mr. Rittenberg’s advertising team, although he said Fox “hasn’t lost a dime” because the ads were moved to different hours.
Fox has made the channel’s tensions with the White House a story. In August, the network’s top-rated host, Mr. O’Reilly, dispatched one of his opinion program’s producers to ask why the administration seemed “so thin-skinned” at a White House briefing. The deputy press secretary disagreed, and said that Mr. O’Reilly had interviewed Mr. Obama during his candidacy last year. The administration’s aggressive stance suggests that it does not view Fox’s audience as one that can be persuaded. During the presidential campaign, Ms. Dunn said, it booked campaign representatives on Fox to try to reach undecided voters, but by mid-October, the campaign had mostly withdrawn them from the channel’s programs.
“It was beyond diminishing returns,” she said. “It was no returns.”
Monday, August 24, 2009
Test your understanding of economics in the news: Is this a change in supply or a change in demand?
Toward the end of the August 24, 2009 article "Attack on Obama riles Beck's advertisers," Associated Press television writer David Bauder suggests that the price of an advertisement on Glenn Beck's television program is likely to decline in the near future. Is this change in the price of a TV commercial during Glenn Beck's show caused by (a) an increase in the supply of ads during Beck's show, (b) a decrease in the supply of ads during Beck's show, (c) an increase in the demand for ads during Beck's show, or (d) a decrease in the demand for ads during Beck's show. Read the article and then illustrate this price change with a graph that shows the initial positions of the supply and demand for ads of Glenn Beck's television show and the new positions of the supply and demand curves. (Hint: Only one of the curves has shifted.) There is a link at the bottom of this posting that provides the answer.
NEW YORK – Glenn Beck returns to Fox News Channel on Monday after a vacation with fewer companies willing to advertise on his show than when he left, part of the fallout from calling President Barack Obama a racist.
A total of 33 Fox advertisers, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., CVS Caremark, Clorox and Sprint, directed that their commercials not air on Beck's show, according to the companies and ColorofChange.org, a group that promotes political action among blacks and launched a campaign to get advertisers to abandon him. That's more than a dozen more than were identified a week ago.
While it's unclear what effect, if any, this will ultimately have on Fox and Beck, it is already making advertisers skittish about hawking their wares within the most opinionated cable TV shows.
The Clorox Co., a former Beck advertiser, now says that "we do not want to be associated with inflammatory speech used by either liberal or conservative talk show hosts." The maker of bleach and household cleaners said in a statement that it has decided not to advertise on political talk shows.
The shows present a dilemma for advertisers, who usually like a "safe" environment for their messages. The Olbermanns, Hannitys, O'Reillys, Maddows and Becks of the TV world are more likely to say something that will anger a viewer, who might take it out on sponsors.
They also host the most-watched programs on their networks.
"This is a good illustration of that conundrum," said Rich Hallabran, spokesman for UPS Stores, which he said has temporarily halted buying ads on Fox News Channel as a whole.
Beck can bring the eyeballs. With the health care debate raising political temperatures, his show had its biggest week ever right before his vacation, averaging 2.4 million viewers each day, according to Nielsen Media Research.
He was actually on another Fox show July 28 when he referred to Obama as a racist with "a deep-seated hatred for white people." The network immediately distanced itself from Beck's statement, but Beck didn't. He used his radio show the next day to explain why he believed that. He would not comment for this article, spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said.
ColorofChange.org quickly targeted companies whose ads had appeared during Beck's show, telling them what he had said and seeking a commitment to drop him. The goal is to make Beck a liability, said James Rucker, the organization's executive director.
"They have a toxic asset," Rucker said. "They can either clean it up or get rid of it."
It's not immediately clear how many of the companies actually knew they were advertising on Beck's show. Sometimes commercial time is chosen for a specific show, but often it is bought on a rotation basis, meaning the network sprinkles the ads throughout the day on its own schedule. Sometimes ads appear by mistake; Best Buy said it bought commercial time for earlier in the day, and one of its ads unexpectedly appeared in Beck's show.
One company, CVS Caremark, said it advertises on Fox but hadn't said anything about Beck. Now it has told its advertising agency to inform Fox that it wanted no commercials on Beck.
"We support vigorous debate, especially around policy issues that affect millions of Americans, but we expect it to be informed, inclusive and respectful," said spokeswoman Carolyn Castel.
Besides the unpredictability of the opinionated cable hosts, the rapid pace of today's wired world complicates decisions on where to place ads, said Kathleen Dunleavy, a spokeswoman for Sprint. She said she was surprised at how fast the Beck issue spread across social media outlets and how quickly advertiser names were attached to it.
UPS' Hallabran said the decision to pull commercials "should not be interpreted as we are permanently withdrawing our advertising from Fox." He said the company wants to reach viewers with a wide spectrum of opinions.
Except for UPS Stores, there's no evidence that any advertisers who say they don't want to be on Beck's show are leaving Fox. Network spokeswoman Irena Briganti said the companies have simply requested the ads be moved elsewhere and that Fox hasn't lost any revenue.
She wouldn't say whether Fox was benefiting from any anti-anti-Beck backlash, with companies looking to support him. Some Beck supporters have urged fans to express their displeasure at companies for abandoning their man.
Beck supporters have suggested that retaliation might have something to do with ColorofChange.org's campaign. One of the group's founders, Van Jones, now works in the Obama administration and has been criticized by Beck. But Rucker said Jones has nothing to do with ColorofChange.org now and didn't even know about the campaign before it started.
Beck's strong ratings — even at 5 p.m. EDT he often outdraws whatever CNN and MSNBC show in prime-time — make it unlikely Beck is going anywhere even as the list of advertisers avoiding him approaches three dozen.
But it could mean advertising time becomes cheaper on his show than such a large audience would normally command. Some of his show's advertisers last week included a male enhancement pill, a law firm looking to sue on behalf of asbestos victims, a company selling medical supplies to diabetics and a water filter company.
Rucker said ColorofChange.org has contacted about 60 companies regarding Beck, and is heartened by the response.
"It's causing a certain conversation around Beck, which I think is important," he said.
CLICK HERE FOR THE ANSWER.
Wednesday, September 1, 2004
Fox News responds to charges of bias
In the September 1, 2004 USA Today article "Fox newspeople say allegations of bias unfounded," Mark Memmott provides responses from Fox New reporters to allegations that the network has a conservative bias.
NEW YORK — The pundits were merciless.
President Bush's twins daughters, Barbara and Jenna, "came off, frankly, as ditzes" when they spoke to the Republican National Convention, one commentator said.
Laura Bush's speech "did not help" the president's campaign, said another.
The first lady and her daughters "had no place up there" on the convention stage, said a third.
It wasn't the liberal Air America radio network doing that skewering Tuesday night at the Republican convention.
The setting was Fox News Channel's skybox inside Madison Square Garden. The show was Special Report, moderated by Brit Hume. Morton Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call, dissed the twins. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, gave Laura Bush's speech a low rating. Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, thought the women shouldn't have been addressing delegates because "we're not electing a family."
All three are known for their conservative or independent political views. Their comments couldn't have been more opposite what conventional wisdom would predict a Fox News panel would say.
Fox News, its critics say, is a cheering squad for Republicans and the Bush administration. The network is the most visible American arm of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. global media empire, which also includes the New York Post.
Fox's critics are counting the number of minutes the network devotes to speeches at this week's Republican convention compared with its coverage of the Democratic convention in July. The first two nights here: 2 hours and 9 minutes. The first two nights at the Democratic convention: 1 hour and 46 minutes. One reason for the difference: former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani went overtime Monday.
A documentary released this summer, Outfoxed, shows former Fox staffers accusing their old bosses of ordering them to slant the news in favor of conservatives. And Tuesday outside Fox News' studios in Manhattan, protesters held a "Shut Up!" rally to express their anger at what they see as the network's conservative bias.
The people at Fox News see things differently. While the hosts who are paid to give their opinions make no attempts to hide their politics, the reporters and anchors on the news programs say they're traditional journalists who don't buy into attempts to spin the news:
• "The only marching order I've had is to do the best news show I can, and there's never been a single eyebrow raised (from management) about what we've done," says Chris Wallace, who joined Fox in 2003 after 15 years with ABC. He hosts Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.
• "The only time in my career that anyone ever told me I had to say something was when I was with a different organization," says senior White House correspondent Jim Angle, who worked at ABC for three years and National Public Radio for nine years before joining Fox in 1996.
• "I swear I'm not biased, and I know that no one (at Fox) has ever told me what to say," Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith says.
Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor, is the lightning rod who catches many of the charges hurled at Fox News. He dismisses allegations that he sometimes makes up things to support his opinions and that Fox News is too conservative.
"If Fox News is a conservative channel — and I'm going to use the word 'if' — so what?" O'Reilly said Tuesday night as he removed his makeup following a broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor from inside Fox's skybox in Madison Square Garden. "You've got 50 other media that are blatantly left. Now, I don't think Fox is a conservative channel. I think it's a traditional channel. There's a difference. We are willing to hear points of view that you'll never hear on ABC, CBS or NBC."
Some critics say Fox and other cable networks overplayed the story of the veterans who accuse Sen. John Kerry of lying about his war record — and gave too much attention to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group even after some of its claims had been contradicted.
But Hume, who's been with Fox News since its beginning in 1996, said Fox took the story seriously because "you had Vietnam veterans, on the record, who were there and who were making serious allegations. How can you not do that story?"
Tom Rosenstiel, director of Columbia University's Project for Excellence in Journalism, warns of the "Foxification" of cable news. He says Fox News' ratings success — it attracted more convention viewers Tuesday than MSNBC and CNN combined — is pushing the other cable channels to be more like it by cutting back on news and adding more conservative opinion.
Even some who say Fox News gives them a fair shot at expressing their liberal opinions question the network's objectivity. A lion of the Democrats' liberal wing, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, was on the Hannity & Colmes show Tuesday. Afterward, he made no effort to hide his feelings. "I go on Fox because a lot of Democrats won't," Rangel said. "Listen to me, Fox is not conservative. They're an extension of the Republican Party. Do they give me a fair shot when I'm on? Yes, because they need me. I'm red meat for their listeners."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

