The FOX News effect
Rachel Re made a very good point in the attached link.
In this, she points out that it is unfair complain that FOX expresses opinions or comments about the news. She, rightfully, points out that the media has been doing this for years. She points out that the reason FOX should not be considered a legitimate news outlet is that they are in the business of creating news events — especially those events that consistently attack one side — in this case Obama and the Democrats. This is one of the best points I have seen. More than any “news” outlet in the past, FOX campaigns counter to the sitting president. In addition, any thinking person has got to recognize the bias in the FOX news presentation.
Now, while most know that I disagree with FOX and their biased view of the world. I wish to discuss the validity of most of what they do.
In these days when facts are highly perishable comodities, the 24 hour news service must do more. Offering opinion, even overwhelming bias is a service that can serve a valuable function. In many parts of the world, biased news operations live confortably — even profitably — next to one another. If we accept it is the funtion of the media to draw an audience, FOX has done its job. If we had more biased services like FOX, news people would have more than enough work and people would likely increase there consumption of news. We would have to look at multiple sources just to know what is really going on. In this age of cheap and easy news, it is harder to NOT hear the news than ever before and I firmly believe the American market could effectively deal with the multiplicity of services and opinions.
The ONE thing I must chide FOX. “Fair and Balanced,” “No Spin Zone,” and others wear on this service like a child trying on their grandparents clothing. If FOX would simply stop what I believe to be false advertisng, I would see them as a legitamate part of the political and news landscape. However, until that time, they sit in my eyes as liers and I do not take my news from known liers.
Kevin said,
November 9, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
Time and again, Fox news offers opinions from both sides of a debate, democrat and republican, liberal and conservative, etc. We do not see this in the analysis from the other news outlets. This gives due credence to their claim of “Fair and balanced.”
As for the anchor, who claims “no spin zone,” it’s hard to give this man any credibility after he decided it was okay for the husband to murder Terry Schiavo. The blood of Terry is partially on the hands of the “no spin” man.
The Obama administration making Fox news a presidential political agenda is scary communist/socialist style government tactic, and falls well outside his oath office, and contradicts the first amendment of free speech. He’s really pulling a Castro by casting so much attention and credibility toward Fox News. President Obama should honor his office and the constitution by ignoring what he considers the “lies” of Fox news. The truth or falseness of what Fox News does will stand or fall on its own merit, and it’s far from Presidential authority to mess with free speech, with a personally-executed presidential attack.
If Obama is not scared of being wrong, i.e. he believes himself to be a harbinger of the truth, then Fox News is less than a mosquito on the political landscape.
SJD said,
November 15, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
As pointed out in the original post, Fox news has gone way beyond stating opinions. Fox has created, promoted, and then more than actively reported on events in opposition to the Obama administration.
Creating the teabag protests were effectively stepping out of their role as a news reporting source and into advocacy. Once that started, Fox labels itself as an opposition news source worthy of being treated as such.
The few time that Fox as promoted a non-conservative repulbican agenda is window dressing like saying, “I am friends with a gay guy.”
SJD said,
November 15, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
“The Obama administration making Fox news a presidential political agenda is scary communist/socialist style government tactic, and falls well outside his oath office, and contradicts the first amendment of free speech.”
While you have some reason to discuss,
this is such an exaggeration that it is laughable.
Fox news was not given access to one set of personal interviews.
You use inflaming words like “scary communist/socialist” and “Castro” and
you show your unwillingness to understand the larger situation.
What Obama did was not even close to what would be done in such countries, and if you understood the First Amendment, you would know it is not even close to the questionable choices ALLOWED by the law.
In the end, your response is not the type of thoughtful discussion I am trying to promote. If you can not come back at me with more than ditto-head rhetoric, you are simply not trying. Give real answers to the real questions.
What is today’s working definition of a news organization?
Can it include a group that organizes and promotes protests while reporting on the elected national leader?
Is there a valid social purpose to the increase in opinion as a part of normal news coverage?