Bob Kohn provides a solid fisking of Bill Moyers’ final appearance on the PBS program Now in two separate posts on Wednesday. Kohn points out something that many who criticize those criticizing FOX News have said all along - that people need to start realizing that there is a huge difference between commentary and news reporting. Using Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and others as examples of biased reporting and propaganda is not the way to go. Those are commentary shows, and are labeled as such. Says Kohn:
Fox News provides two basic kinds of programming: news and news analysis. In its news broadcasts–what you view at the top and bottom of the hour, live coverage of events during so-called “news alerts,” and during programs called, Fox News Live and The Fox Report–Fox presents 100% straight news. If Moyers thinks they are slanted, then show me the evidence. I’d gladly be among the first to condemn it.
I’ll second that motion.
6 responses so far ↓
1 sxagecast // Jan 7, 2005 at 10:56 am
Evidence. Haven’t you read the memos to newsroom staff from VP of News John Moody? (http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert228.shtml) If that’s not enough, the Fox watchers at News Hound have compiled an electronic dossier of Fox News political bias that decisively puts to rest any notion that the news programming portion of FNC stands as 100% straight news.
2 Roxanne - // Jan 7, 2005 at 11:20 am
I think there’s two things going on here. Whenever FOX gets attacked, the attacker uses the commentary show to illustrate the bias. Of course most all commentary shows are biased and on that point Tom and Mr. Fisk-er have a point. EXCEPT THAT they read the FOX tag “FAIR AND BALANCED” during the commentary shows often when they break away.
And Sxagecast is also right about those memos. There’s no doubt in any thinking person’s mind that FOX NEWS has an agenda. I personally don’t care if a media source has an agenda. They just shouldn’t label themselves with a tag that is the direct opposite of their mission. An example of this is alot of alternative newsweeklies — “they don’t seek balance, they seek truth.”
The question goes to disclosure — which I think you allude to in your post over at Morph, Tom.
3 Roxanne - // Jan 7, 2005 at 11:30 am
One could say that there’s also a bias in what a news organization chooses to cover. What’s the old axiom? News doesn’t tell us what to think, but what to think about? Something like that.
Well, there’s a bias inherent in what they choose to have us think about. But, that goes for every news source.
4 Tom Biro // Jan 7, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Two things here - Not to say that they aren’t being on the up and up, but there are News Hounds fact checkers out there, too, so it’s all circular. Everything they say isn’t God’s word. A lot of what is found on that site criticizes what the COMMENTATORS say, not the news reports here and there, frankly.
The other is that if you think the Moody memos are the only things out there, and that EVERY SINGLE news organization doesn’t have the same thing going on, you’re kidding yourself. Did you notice the memo that came out a few months back from the ABC News guy? They’re not one-time things - they happen all the time. I think what has to be clarified is that news organizations covering particular stories and IGNORING facts in order to change perception of NEWS STORIES is very different from organizations choosing to have a certain % of their stories be about war, murder, celebrities, blah blah blah.
“A word about Laci Peterson revelations: we need to be extra careful that we know from WHOM we are getting our information. There is no doubt that Mark Geragos is a skillful manipulator. That doesn’t mean that he’s wrong or deceitful. But everything he tells us, or anyone else, will be to benefit his client. The same is true of prosecutors and Ms. Allred. We don’t need to discount what they say, but we need to be aware that it comes with attitude.” is a pretty balanced statment, IMHO.
“The La Jeunesse lives should be used. The national forest as pot field story is pure Fox.” is debatable, depending on any other context or conversation.
I could go on, but it’s not necessary. I also think that a lot of the FOX daytime “news” shows that have people in audiences talking to hosts or whatever still shouldn’t be taken at face value. If every single half-hour update is biased or spun, it’s an issue. To be brutally honest, I don’t think they are - then again, I don’t watch every single one. The problem with the argument here is that you could say this of every news org out there. If they don’t cover a story YOU think is important in a six minute update, you believe they are biased and are hiding a story. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Hence you write it in your blog or other publication - it’s the “fix” for what ails you.
Also consider the fact that I read probably 90% of the things that cruise through Mediachannel, and Tim Karr and I have corresponded on numerous topics, many of which I probably agree with on a personal level - but not all of them. I still believe that if you took memos of this type from the three broadcast and all the cablers and put ‘em side by side, you would have a hard time deciphering what came from whom, if all the names were removed.
5 Brendan Watson // Jan 7, 2005 at 8:42 pm
As always, claims of media bias, whether they’re claims of liberal bias against the New York Times or conservative bias against FOX News, are overblown. But there is truth behind these claims, as well. Objective journalism does not exist, never has and never will. It’s impossible for a reporter to ignore their personal emotions, instincts, education, race, etc. Nor should they.
The problem with the news isn’t that its bias, but that news outlets are not honest and forthright with what their biases are. This is especially true of FOX News, which claims its coverage is “fair and balanced.” Sure, at times it is. However, that’s not usually the case.
And regardless of what shows are “labeled,” what really matters are what distinctions the audience is able to make. Most of FOX News’ audience thinks that they’re getting “objective” news, and not one-sided, partisan commentary. If you haven’t already, you should see the documentary “Outfoxed.”
Yes, its claims are also overblown. But it is very well researched and provides some very good evidence of behind the scenes agenda-setting, which supports only very conservative causes and as a matter of policy doesn’t challenge the current administration (though, it had no problem going after Clinton, so it can not claim patriotism).
6 sxagecast // Jan 8, 2005 at 9:05 pm
I also have two things. The first involves full disclosure. Bill Moyers, through the Schumann Foundation, was a principal funder of MediaChannel in 2004. I know and respect the man and believe that he’s one of few left in mainstream media who is willing to do what journalists are supposed to do — constantly challenge the leadership on behalf of the public interest. At Fox News, the mandate from high seems to be the opposite: support the war; support the president; and downplay dissenting views — all against a backdrop of waving flags. John Moody’s memos make this pretty clear. And I have yet to see memos to newsroom from news execs at the other networks that would suggest a similar, singular bias. If they exist, we at MediaChannel would love to expose them.
I also doubt that any of the others networks would tolerate a Washington correspondent with such clear links to the Bush campaign (Carl Cameron’s wife worked to elect Bush in 2000). Any doubts about Cameron’s objectivity are dispelled by outtakes from a July 19, 2000 interview during which the Fox correspondent panders to Bush and boasts about his wife’s support.
The hypothetical we should ask ourselves is if the White House was occupied by a Democrat (imagine Jeb Bartlett), would Moyers maintain a challenging stance. I believe so. Fox News would also challenge the Democrat, but not in service of the American public and the Fourth Estate. They would do so in order to propagate the conservative agenda favored by Fox News executives and News Corp management.
I don’t fault FNC for being successful. In fact, I applaud them. They have designed newsy infotainment programming that appeals to a massive and previously underserved swath of the American viewing public. If nothing else they’re great businesspeople. In many ways “Fair and Balanced” is meant more as a provocation than a statement of fact. It’s good marketing. What troubles me is that many Americans seem to take the slogan seriously, not seeing FNC for the fine-tuned propaganda that it is.
Tim Karr