The major commercial networks (NBC, ABC, and CBS) find themselves pressured by cable news; in fact, CBS, the home of the late legendary news anchor Walter Cronkite, last election day found itself finishing fifth, behind CNN and Fox News. What's particularly notable is the fact like its network competitors (CNN and MSNBC), which have lost half of their election season ratings, Fox News has retained about 90% of its ratings. I submit that Fox News' high ratings are largely due to providing a different type of perspective.
Now everyone knows that there are news commentary shows on MSNBC and Fox News (particularly Beck and Hannity) tend to reflect different political points of view, i.e., progressive and conservative respectively. However, I believe that there's a qualitative difference in what I've found between Chris Matthews discussing how the Obama experience made "a thrill going up [his] leg" and what Fox News commentators say. (For example, I haven't heard a Fox News commentator saying the Obama Presidency sends a "shiver down [his] spine." ) I think Fox News makes a more concerted effort to provide a more balanced point of view with several regularly featured Democrat or progressive contributors (e.g., Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, Geraldine Ferraro, Susan Estrich, and Marc Lamont Hill). On the other hand, I've heard Chris Matthews lavishly congratulate interviewee, progressive Orlando rookie Congressman Alan Grayson (the feature attraction of mycongressmanisnuts.com), for putting Republicans in their place. (MSNBC does have some token conservative input, former GOP politicians Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan.)
The fact is that Fox News is smartly providing a market alternative to what appears to be a pervasive mass media liberal bias. The bias can occur in subtle ways, e.g., ignoring or paying short shrift to alternative points of view, not pointing out violations of campaign commitments or failing to critically examine the Administration's talking points or its actions. In other ways, the bias shows in how Fox News broke coverage on major news stories this year ignored or discounted by other outlets, e.g., the ACORN scandals (in particular, the undercover prostitution sting), the Van Jones kerfuffles and resignation, and the Tea Party revolts.
The Obama Administration has shamelessly attempted to marginalize Fox News by deliberately linking its news department with the commentary programs and by passive aggressively refusing to make Obama available for interviews. (I believe that he has been on Fox maybe 2 or 3 times, a fraction of the appearances made on other outlets. You would expect, given the distinct Fox News audience, if anything, Obama would want to take full advantage of every opportunity to get his point of view across on that network.)
Obama himself has also taken some cheap shots at the news professionals at Fox, implying that news coverage is slanted against him for non-professional, personal reasons: "...there's one network out there that doesn't like me" and FNC "operating basically as a talk-radio format" rather than as a "news outlet." [This is rather like confusing New York Times news coverage with its editorial progressive columnists like Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd. Of course, we all remember the high professional standards exhibited by the Times last year on the alleged tryst between McCain and a female lobbyist. No doubt they were going for the Dan Rather Award for Journalistic Excellence (cf. Rather's due diligence investigation of Bush's National Guard experience).]
Not to mention Communications Director Anita Dunn going even further on CNN:
What I think is fair to say about Fox -- and certainly it's the way we view it -- is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party. They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is.Stop the presses. Apparently when the Obama personnel appear on CNN, they are delivering "news", not reflecting Administration talking points or political positions of a wing of the Democratic Party. Everyone knows that Democratic "news" are more equal than GOP "talking points". I guess if CNN declines to interview GOP lawmakers, that makes them a professional news organization, but if Fox News agrees to give the opposition a chance to state its point of view to advance public debate, it's become the front for the GOP. Never mind the fact, of course, that Fox News heavily covered the nonpartisan Tea Party revolts, which refused to give GOP Chairman Michael Steele an opportunity to speak at a Chicago event.
In fact, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith has gone to the extreme of criticizing his own network for carrying an interview with NJ GOP gubernatorial contender Chris Christie without a competing interview with the incumbent Governor Jon Corzine, whom had declined to make himself available to FNC. (Since when does an incumbent politician get an implicit veto over news coverage of his opponent by refusing to interview? "Fair and balanced" simply requires a good faith attempt. I seriously doubt that a deeply unpopular Democratic incumbent governor like Jon Corzine has lacked sufficient media coverage of his point of view. The issue with the other news channels is they intentionally exclude or misrepresent other points of view.)
More outrageously, the White House attempted to block Fox News from interviews with "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg, which was checked only when the other 4 news networks refused to cooperate. Kudos to CNN's Campbell Brown for her ability to expose the double standards of Senior
The quick-and-short from those of us on the ground was that the CNN editorial process unfairly influenced the debate using its liberal, narrow perspective of what the GOP "represents" to only choose those questions which focused primarily on: God, Guns, Gays, and Immigration...What about: Health Care? Energy? Climate Change? Personal Responsibility? Small Business?I myself have been critical of Fox News at times, particularly with respect to its sympathetic handling of Sarah Palin (I don't think I've ever heard a negative news story on Palin on Fox News), Sean Hannity's preparation for a Michael Moore interview, Bill O'Reilly's populist rants against oil speculators, etc. But you have to admire the way that Fox News continues to add to its deep bench of media libertarian/conservatives, over the past year alone adding Glenn Beck, John Stossel and Tucker Carlson. I have mixed feelings about John Stossel leaving his high-profile appearances on ABC's 20/20. From my perspective, there is no fundamental difference among the top three networks' newscasts.
Halloween Cartoon
Scozzafava Drops Out of NY-23 Race
In Friday's post, I said the following: "I don't see how Scozzafava pulls this out; personally, I think she should withdraw to ensure the GOP retains the seat." In fact, she essentially did just that, releasing her supporters (although she'll remain on the ballot). The GOP leadership promptly endorsed Doug Hoffman.
Another Halloween Cartoon
Musical Interlude
The song "Permanent" by American Idol 2008 winner David Cook reached #24 on the charts (and, in my opinion, should have done better). David's eloquent song poignantly references his beloved big brother Adam's fatal battle with brain cancer. Adam died just weeks before David's performance at the American Idol finale last May; the song was released as a charity single. Highly recommended. RIP, Adam Cook.
