Much Mayhem Ahead: The Trials And Tribulations Of Covering Fox News

New York Times:

Like most working journalists, whenever I type seven letters -- Fox News -- a series of alarms begins to whoop in my head: Danger. Warning. Much mayhem ahead.

Once the public relations apparatus at Fox News is engaged, there will be the calls to my editors, keening (and sometimes threatening) e-mail messages, and my requests for interviews will quickly turn into depositions about my intent or who else I am talking to.

And if all that stuff doesn't slow me down and I actually end up writing something, there might be a large hangover: Phone calls full of rebuke for a dependent clause in the third to the last paragraph, a ritual spanking in the blogs with anonymous quotes that sound very familiar, and -- if I really hit the jackpot -- the specter of my ungainly headshot appearing on one of Fox News's shows along with some stern copy about what an idiot I am.

Part of me -- the Irish, tribal part -- admires Fox News's ferocious defense of its guys. I work at a place where editors can make easy sport of teasing apart your flawed copy until it collapses in a steaming pile, but Lord help those outsiders who make an unwarranted or unfounded attack on me or my work. Our tactics may be different, but we, too, are strong for our posse.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[RememberTheAlamo]

Go Fox News!

[Raymondf]

Consider the source of this article The New York Times, that have lost 1/3 of their subscriptions. Enough said.

[bookon]

And the rest of the newspaper industy is doing so well!

Maybe if they were run by The Moonies, things would be better.

[Redrover666]

NY Post seems to being doing OK.

[4real]

News is not really news. They are businesses owned by people with an agenda who want you to believe as they do. They want to distract you from whats really going on as they feed their fat pockets and live the good life. They like to feed you lies and innuendo until you don't know what to think. They pretend to present you with both sides of an issues when in actuality they have fed you one.

I haven't come across any news stations that are truly fair and balanced. More like disgusting and dishonest. I can't bear to watch any of the major networks.

[OgreDaddy]

Once again you use the term LIBERAL without engaging your brain.

When a journalist speaks out exposing government waste, FRAUD and abuse
or alerts the citizens that certain elements within the government are trying to undermine
the protections of our Constitution, you call that LIBERAL media.
When they expose criminal wrong doing that puts your tax payer paid government job at risk
you call it LIBERAL.

Our founding fathers were determined that we must have a free press to keep the government
in line..

So you might want to think just a bit harder about who you're calling LIBERAL.

Most of the people you are calling LIBERALS are actually quite CONSERVATIVE
when it comes to how our government should operate.

I have $850 BILLION reasons to think that just maybe you have your stereotypes mixed up.

[timothe]

"When a journalist speaks out exposing government waste, FRAUD and abuse
or alerts the citizens that certain elements within the government are trying to undermine
the protections of our Constitution, you call that LIBERAL media.
When they expose criminal wrong doing that puts your tax payer paid government job at risk
you call it LIBERAL."

It's LIBERAL when the media only exposes the fraud and the abuse from one side of the aisle. Case in point....notice when our elected officials are caught doing something illegal and/or immoral. When a Republican gets caught, the media always lists their party affiliation next to their name and/or they use the word "conservative" to describe said individual. When a Democrat gets caught, the party affiliation is rarely attached to the individual.

Google Elliott Spitzer as just one example of many. Or Detroit governor Dwayne Kilpatrick. Or Chris Dodd.

[bookon]

>>When a Republican gets caught, the media always lists their party affiliation next to their name and/or they use the word "conservative" to describe said individual.

Were as Fox just Labels them as Democrats.

[timothe]

Here is just one small example of the liberal bias of the New York Times:

"Between June 5 and July 5 (skipping June 4 to eliminate the pro-Obama skew from news reports of him clinching the Democratic nomination), the Times ran 90 stories on Barack Obama, compared to 57 on McCain (there was some overlap, as several stories devoted significant space to both candidates). Times Watch logged those stories one of three ways, as either positive, negative or neutral toward the respective candidate. The findings were striking: If Hillary Clinton thought she got an unfair shake from the press against Barack Obama (she did), then John McCain certainly has a legitimate bias beef against the Times." ....

..."Of the 90 Obama stories, 40 (44%) were labeled as positive portrayals, with only 13 (14%) classified as negative, for a positive-negative ratio of 3:1. The remaining 37 were neutral.

Of the 57 McCain stories, only 9 were positive (16%), compared to 24 negative (42%), for a positive-negative ratio of nearly 1:3. (The 24 other McCain stories were neutral.) That's almost the complete opposite of Obama's positive press."

(Content supplied by Clay Waters, Times Watch)

[InofTouch]

you mess with the New York Times' Horns....Fox News and now your getting your bull

[InofTouch]

you mess with the New York Times' Horn....Fox News and now your getting your bull

[rickmv]

I am still amazed when I read comments from lefties (who apparently think they get "unfiltered, objective news" from this site, the New York Times, MSNBC, CBS, Newsweek, etc..) when the subject of Fox News comes up. Here's a thought: Do a little objective analysis.
Why is Fox number one after so little time on the air? Easy. All of those media outlets I mentioned as well as many others are left leaning if not unabashedly pro Democratic, liberal institutions and have been for thirty years or more. People who felt that their views were repeatedly and reflexively slammed were thirsty for a place where they felt like they were part of the conversation. It's the same reason Rush has been number one for so long. I'm 35 and as a youngster even I noticed that when Reagen was President the evening news lead in would go something like this:
"President Reagen introduced his budget to Congress today. Here to discuss it is Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill". Or "Here to offer his opinion is Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy". No Republicans, no objectivity, no "balance" if you will.
This was also true of the print media which, like today, was incredibly partisan. There has never been an "objective" media in this country. It is a myth.

[Andman0121]

I am even more amazed when you righties defend this dribble of a "news" outlet. You asked that if Fox "News" was so terrible then how come it gets the ratings along with Rush? Simple, there are a lot of righties out there who cant formulate their own opinion so they have to get one told to them by the evil likes of Rush and Fox "News"! And, AGAIN, is the MSM really THAT left to you? Really?? I hate to mention this again and again and again but look at all your AM radio stations! I cant drive down my own street without having to hear some right wing nonsense.
And you said youre looking for balance?? Fox "News" doesnt offer balance on its station it simply offers what you right wing nutjobs call a "balanced MSM". Right? Wouldnt it be better if Fox "News" took the high road and REALLY offered a balance instead of leveling the "liberal media MSM" in our country? Dont defend this schlock, its indefensible.

Oh, and I completely agree that there is no real "objective" news source in this country. No one is even arguing that point! We "lefties" as you so simple-mindedly refer to us as just recognize Fox "News" as neither fair nor balanced. Wake up.

[rickmv]

More canned talking points. Where to start?
I never said Fox was terrible. I said (if you bothered to read the post past the first sentence) that they are providing content for a market (anything not liberal) that was ignored for decades. I cited examples which if you read I guess you did not understand, or maybe are too young to remember. You mention AM radio? What about network news, cable news, newspapers, weekly magazines.....
I never said I was looking for balanced coverage, I said it was a myth that it ever existed in the first place. Fox is a "balance" for the liberal slant you find everywhere else. Just deal with it.

[Beachchick]

FOX denigrates PBS because it has ethics and reports facts. Where is the liberal media? FOX claims PBS is liberal. I suppose because it doesn't engage in deeply partisan opinion and mudslinging, or maybe it is rooted in the network's push for complete privatization.

I view NBC, CNN, and FOX as the same generic opinion news. We gravitate to the opinion that reinforces our believe, but all of it undermines democracy and causes deep division. The level of hostility and complete lack of empathy for differences is what will destroy us. It wasn't always like this. The news used to inform and educate to engage conversation, not misinform to break down communication.

[rickmv]

PBS makes an effort but it was not always so. Along the lines of what I explained above, they always simply reinforced the liberal opposition. Do you know who their political "analyst" was for 15 years? Mark Shields. They finally relented and gave a counterbalancing viewpoint after two decades of criticism.
Where is the liberal media? I refer you to my original post: NYT, MSNBC, Newsweek, Time. Do you think it is possible that you don't see them as liberal because you agree with them? And while I agree that the media could be better balanced I see you think there was a time that it was. When?

[glesslib]

Gosh, don't let your "amazement" get the better of you. I suppose you've never noticed that there is a response to the speeches of every president by the loyal opposition. That's why the Dems commented on Reagan's budgets and the Republicans commented on Clinton's.

Everyone knows that the media have spin. It's just that your media preferences don't just spin, they obfuscate. Look it up.

[rickmv]

Uhhhh....when the "go to" opinion on an issue is always and exclusively that of the opposition that is called framing an issue in the negative. What would you think if "President" Obama submitted a tax proposal and the only person that they went to for analysis was Grover Norquist? I'm not talking about the "rebuttal" of the opposition to a state of the union address, I'm talking about an "objective" media outlet selling Ted Kennedy's opinion of a Reagen budget (just one example) as all the information that the public needs to know about it. If you can't see the difference the joke is on you. And save your sarcasm for someone who is affected by it.

[indypete]

"....Why is Fox number one after so little time on the air? ...."

Easy.... Missing rich white girls and crazy black preachers with copy read by pretty girls with nice boobs and short skirts.

It's popular for the same reason as the parrot cage liners at the checkout line in the supermarket. It's called TABLOID JOURNALISM.

Trash sells.

[rickmv]

Actually MSNBC has prettier anchors, so I'm still trying to figure out your point.........assuming you actually had one. Sorry, didn't mean to put any pressure on you.

[drzoon]

NEWSBUNNIES! Newsbunnies and SCREAMERS!

FOX NEWS is red meat for the easily confused and short attention span brain dead consumers of what hardly ANYONE would call.... news.

that my little 35 yr old fox fan... is how you get "ratings".

that from the man who not only created and produced 195 episodes of "Strip Poker" for USA Network.. and ... did my time on The Man Show as well.

i know something about getting ratings using "bunnies" and putting idiots on the screen for the guys at home to feel good about themselves!!!

[rickmv]

I never watched the Man Show because I thought it was beneath me. Your opinions seem to be more projection than anything else. Also, and I'm sure you know this because of your purported "expertise", but a recent Pew survey showed that Rush's audience (and by inference a large portion of Fox's as well) did better on a political and general knowledge survey than PBS's audience. Air America wasn't included because they did not have enough listeners to constitute a reliable sample. Sorry to crush your worldview.

[mk3872]

Very good article and very brave. PLEASE do not be so spineless as to not stand up to the legions of doom and neoconism of OReilly and Limbaugh. Standing up to FOX and confronting them in full public view is what we all need to do.

BTW, FoxNews is the most watched U.S. cable news channel. That makes them the primary MSM. To say that the media is left-wing liberal bias is nonsense. It is full of right-wing, neocon extremists that utilize bully tactics and are not at all a news station. They are the official propaganda wing of the GOP.

[edva]

Get this - after writing an email critical of their "reporting", Fox has apparently blocked me from sending them any more emails! Fair and balanced my @ss!

[Redrover666]

You figure they have an obligation to read your screeds?

[Redrover666]

David,

Thanks for the piece. Every time I read some self important little columnist like yourself tell the world how upset everyone over at FOX gets when you write something "controversial" about about them, I get a good chuckle.

What you ought to be more concerned about is your job. With round after round of job cuts at the NYT due to declining interest in your rag, you might find yourself writing reviews for TV Guide.

[BlueStateMan]

...& you might consider writing for "My Weekly Reader"....what with the fact that you make no ARGUMENT to support vapid premise. Just empty hyperbole.

Typical Neocon.

[Redrover666]

Sparky, what's vapid are your silly insults. They are in fact, "empty" of any point and seem to be as much as you are capable of producing.

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

David,

Thanks for your piece.

For years I've been alternately frustrated and disgusted whenever I've tuned in "just to see what they're saying over there" - fuming at the fact that 10's of millions of Americans view this steaming poop as some variant of the unvarnished truth.

Yet, I'd no idea that the Fox News PR machine would resort to the Machiavellian means you recount in order to candy coat their cast of infotainers while tarring and feathering any honestly dissenting voice.

There are obvious and quite unflattering comparisons to made when it comes to Fox's tactics. At least one such comparison would stretch credulity for the "dittohead" or "fair and balanced" set. Yet, in the middle of the 20th century a particular European regime perfected the art of "repeating the big lie" over and over again.

Indeed, any brand that sets its name beside "News" while choosing to forgo even a half-hearted effort at journalistic objectivity must be labeled a partisan propaganda machine. And, lest we miss the obvious, it must now be clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Fox News is the Republican Party's Ministry of Propaganda.

I pray that this sensationalist machine of the less-than-artful smear, slander and sizzle approach to infotainment goes the way of Joseph McCarthy and the dodo bird.

[robynuva]

And then there is this:

http://www.richmondspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=newceo-msg

Local Fox station bulldozes kittens!

No, I am not kidding!

[coba]

fox news is a horrible station

http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/07/05/hillary-supporters-back-obama/

[HBeachbum]

It is funny how threatened you Libs are by one little cable news channel. If the news isn't skewed to your liking, then it's not news. How typical.

[eden4barack08]

"...one little cable news channel." ?? Hahahahaha. too funny.

BTW evil comes in small packages too.

[RealityBaseCamp]

eden4barack08 reacted to:
' "...one little cable news channel." ?? Hahahahaha. too funny.

BTW evil comes in small packages too.'

Ohhh, and note that the same people who crow that their cable "news" channel is the BIGGEST, think we shouldn't respond to their misinformation because, hey, it's just one little channel...

[noamjunior]

your right - I tend to get upset at a supposed "News" channel that lies to promote a right wing agenda (murdoch ADMITTED that Fox was pushing the US to invade Iraq) and shows doctored pictures of people who disagree with them.

[lornejl1]

We are threatened because brainwashed fools like you vote, follow my drift ?

[protagonia]

It has to be lies to not be to our liking. That's WHY we don't like it.

Obviously, others do like the lies. If you respond by saying that ALL news stations lie, then you are admitting that FOX lies - STILL proving my point. If you say that only FOX tells the truth and the others are all lying, then you leave yourself open to be called paranoid - STILL proving my point.

[ChristianEcon.com]

"It is funny how threatened you Libs are by one little cable news channel. If the news isn't skewed to your liking, then it's not news. How typical."

Straw man. Just like Fox.

[Redrover666]

No.... that's a furry, dog-like creature.