Eric Boehlert2010-02-09T10:50:51-05:00Eric Boehlerthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=eric-boehlertCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Eric BoehlertGood old fashioned elbow grease.Palin Headlines Birther Conference; Press Pretends Not To Noticetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.4547262010-02-09T08:02:01-05:002010-02-09T08:02:01-05:00Eric Boehlerthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/
And I mean nobody. According to Nexis, there were more than 150 newspaper articles and columns published in the U.S. last week that mentioned both Palin and the Tea Party. (Combined, The New York Times and The Washington Post published 18 of them.) Yet out of all those articles and columns, exactly two also mentioned Joseph Farah by name. (Congrats to the Philadelphia Daily News and New Hampshire's Concord Monitor.)
And keep in mind that lots of scribes, even after listening to Farah's primtetime rambling rant, filed dispatches from Nashville stressing how mellow and mainstream the Tea Party convention was turning out to be. According to the Washington Post, the mood at the Nashville confab was "festive, even giddy." And no, not a single word in the Post dispatch mentioned Farah's high-profile birther harangue.
Bottom line: The birther movement embarrasses most conservatives. Yet even when they invite a birther nut to speak at their conference, the press still won't ask tough questions. Instead, journalists politely look away.
It didn't used to work that way. There's been a long media tradition of holding politicians accountable for their public associations, especially when they appear at conventions that feature fringe rhetoric from controversial speakers. Reporting on who politicians agree to share a stage with has always been considered not only fair game, but genuinely newsworthy.
It's just that in this instance, the press gave Palin a complete and unobstructed free ride.
Read the entire Media Matters column here. ]]>Today's "Conservative Journalism" -- What Would Bill Buckley Think?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.4460972010-02-02T12:50:30-05:002010-02-02T14:19:54-05:00Eric Boehlerthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/Jackass-style, to the unhinged State of the Union response from elite members of the right-wing punditocracy (i.e. Obama's an "arrogant," "fake" "jerk"), a disturbing portrait emerged last week that helped confirm the sad state of "conservative journalism" in America today.
And yes, I prefer to put the oxymoronic phrase "conservative journalism" in quotation marks, since it seems to exist more as an idea than a functioning entity. Instead of being in the news gathering or analysis business, "conservative journalism" today appears to be more akin to propaganda/name-calling -- or, thanks to O'Keefe's Keystone Kops routine, more like dirty tricks/propaganda/name-calling.
It's political warfare (or pseudo-journalism) being waged by people who want the protection and prestige that comes with being called a journalist, even though few of them actually practice the craft. It's fueled by thoughtless defamation. And yes, the lack of adult supervision has become glaringly obvious, which is why I can't help wondering what William F. Buckley would make of all this.
Buckley died in 2008, and, of course, is credited with revitalizing modern-day American conservatism. With his magazine, National Review, as well as his three-decade run as the host of the wonky Firing Line on PBS, Buckley also served as the father of conservative journalism in this country, as he worked to cultivate a space where partisan reporters, pundits, and essayists could join the media landscape and influence the public debate. (Ronald Reagan often credited National Review for inspiring him.)
But would Buckley even recognize "conservative journalism" today, where pundits rush to be the first to broadcast their childish Obama taunts? And where sloppy P.T. Barnums like Andrew Breitbart seem to encourage a new generation of "journalists" to skirt the law in the name of vilifying Democrats?
Read the whole Media Matters column here. ]]>Does Fox News Coverage Double as GOP Campaign Contribution?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.4365822010-01-26T07:59:43-05:002010-01-26T14:37:26-05:00Eric Boehlerthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/
That relentlessly partisan approach continues to raise fundamental questions about what role Fox News plays in our political culture and, thanks to its shameless GOP boosterism, whether the cable channel and its programming should fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission. Meaning, does Fox News' gung-ho GOP campaign coverage double as a contribution to the Republican Party, a contribution that should be regulated?
The Commission defines "contribution" to include any gift of money or "anything of value" made for the express purpose of influencing a federal election. A key Commission exemption for decades, though, has been granted to the news media, since they have been seen as "neutral" and not controlled by political interests. Therefore their editorial product could not be considered a "contribution" or "expenditure" to any campaign.
The exemption was created, in the words of the Commission, to ensure "the unfettered right of the newspapers, TV networks, and other media to cover and comment on political campaigns," which makes perfect sense, since there's nothing wrong with newspapers endorsing candidates or columnists berating incumbents. The exception has allowed journalists (and more recently bloggers) to report and pontificate about campaigns without having to worry about federal finance laws and whether their editorial efforts cross the line into candidate contributions.
That approach worked well because for decades there has been both a spoken and unspoken understanding among professional journalists as to what kind of guidelines and standards ought to be upheld in the pursuit of the news. That was especially true of cable and network news broadcasters, who wield so much influence in our TV-centric culture.
But as we've been stressing for the past year, the radically transformed Fox News no longer plays by any discernible rules. I mean, allowing one candidate, on the eve of a special election, to repeatedly raise funds on the air? That's unthinkable in any other newsroom in America. Yet that's the platform Fox News opened to Scott Brown in his quest to defeat Martha Coakley in Massachusetts last week. That is, when Fox News wasn't regularly smearing Coakley.
So the question must now be raised: Is Fox News' relentlessly one-sided coverage the equivalent of a massive campaign contribution to the GOP? And based on some recent regulatory language used by the FEC, the answer might just be "yes."
Read the full Media Matters column here.
]]>Come Back, Bob Woodward. Save Us From Game Change Journalismtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.4280462010-01-19T10:47:54-05:002010-01-19T10:47:54-05:00Eric Boehlerthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/Game Change, I'll take Woodward's approach every time. Because despite their flaws, Woodward's books are mostly about policy, about historic White House initiatives and how they get made, including all the backroom administration wrangling involved. Game Change, by comparison, rarely aspires to be more than a gossip clearinghouse. (And, yes, that's why The Village loves the book.)
After finishing Game Change, I'd be surprised if many readers had any deeper understanding of why the central players ran for president, or of the platforms on which they campaigned. Game Change, like the Beltway press, doesn't do public policy. It doesn't even do candidate profiles. Instead, the book is quite literally a celebration of (gossipy) process over substance, and is just as often relentlessly -- and gratuitously -- unserious and mean. It's filled with wildly one-sided, stick-figure portraits of the campaign's major players. (Elizabeth Edwards "barked," "snarled," "badgered," and "berated" her husband's campaign aides, all on one page.)
So, if Game Change represents some kind of change in the Beltway media guard -- after all, Game Change Central (aka Politico) last week dubbed co-author Mark Halperin "the high priest of establishment political journalism" -- then I'm going to resist change to cling to the Woodward model of elite Beltway reporting.
It was Woodward, of course, who practically trademarked the omniscient, trust-me approach to inner-circle reporting as he re-created scenes as well as extended dialogues, often without explaining to readers exactly who his sources were. (And, yes, that led to legitimate debate about his reporting methods.) It's the same trick Halperin and co-author John Heilemann try in Game Change in hopes of creating a "sweeping, novelistic" feel.
A key difference, though, is that Woodward employs a velvet writing touch, as compared to the subtle-as-a-sledgehammer style of Heilemann and Halperin, who, along with their score-settling sources, bury most of their key players under a pile of invective. In other words, in Woodward's books, most of the key players don't come off looking like assholes. In Game Change, they do.
Read the full Media Matters column here.
]]>Stenography 101: How the Press Let Palin and Cheney Rig the Systemtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.4200282010-01-12T10:58:57-05:002010-01-12T11:33:05-05:00Eric Boehlerthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/
In a word, it's stenography.
That's how too many scribes have covered Cheney and Palin in recent months, allowing them to dispense tightly controlled pieces of information, which journalists then trumpet as breaking news. And yes, the trend is unprecedented in modern day American politics.
It's actually a two-fer. First, it's unprecedented because the Beltway press has never showered attention on political losers, such as Cheney and Palin. Meaning, the press has never cared what a former VP had to say about current events right after leaving the White House (think: Dan Quayle), or what a failed VP candidate had to say just months after losing in a landslide (think: Geraldine Ferraro). Traditionally, pundits and reporters disdain political losers (think: Mike Dukakis). But for Cheney and Palin, the rules have been generously reworked.
The second oddity is that journalists now allow Cheney and Palin to completely dictate the media ground rules and afford them the chance to have one-way relationships with the press. Palin, for instance, perhaps still bruising from her woeful 2008 media performances, still hasn't allowed herself to be interviewed by a single independent political journalist since she launched her book in November. Instead, she mostly communicates with the mainstream media via Facebook. And now that she's signed on to join the Fox News staff, the chances of Palin ever speaking with the serious press seem to be less than zero. That lack of openness stacks the deck and leads to dreadful bouts of stenography; of literally recording what controversial Republicans say, and nothing more.
]]>Auld Lang Syne: Farewell To Another Decade Of "Liberal Media Bias"tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.4003832009-12-22T09:29:53-05:002009-12-23T11:05:32-05:00Eric Boehlerthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/
Y'know, the same "liberal media" that over the previous decade unleashed its venom on Al Gore, morphed into George Bush's lapdog cheerleaders, and created unfair double standards for covering the new Democratic president, Barack Obama.
The first quote I'd nominate actually comes from very late 1999, but the implication was pure 2000 and the decade that followed. The passage appeared in a Time report about the unfolding Democratic primary battle and came just as the Beltway press was unveiling its unapologetic War on Gore, as The Daily Howler might put it.
The orgy of resentment that erupted toward Gore during the 2000 campaign season was likely unprecedented in American politics, as media elites did very little to hide their disdain for Gore. For years, they mocked him, bad-mouthed him, and made up nasty stories about him. (Hint: Inventing the Internet.) Acting as a conduit for the RNC, the press actively tried to delegitimize the Democratic Party nominee for president. And the chronically caustic and unfair press coverage cost Gore the election in the historically close 2000 campaign.
Which brings me to Quote of the Decade No. 1, courtesy Time's Eric Pooley and his New Hampshire primary dispatch: [emphasis added]:
[T]he 300 media types watching in the press room at Dartmouth were, to use the appropriate technical term, totally grossed out by it. Whenever Gore came on too strong, the room erupted in a collective jeer, like a gang of 15-year-old Heathers cutting down some hapless nerd.
If readers needed confirmation regarding the open contempt for Gore, blogger Mickey Kaus soon traveled to New Hampshire and announced the consensus among journalists: "They hate Gore. They really do think he's a liar. And a phony."
My second Quote of the Decade nominee arrived 110 months later and via NBC's Chuck Todd. It was uncorked inside the new Obama White House press room, on January 23, 2009. The topic on the table was the administration's proposed economic stimulus package and whether the White House, which was hoping for a bipartisan effort on the legislation, would be disappointed if the bill passed with little or no Republican support. And that's when Todd asked Robert Gibbs the following:
Would [the President] veto a bill if it didn't have Republican support?
That's right. Just days into the new presidency, Todd wanted to know if Obama would go ahead and take the unprecedented action of vetoing his own legislation designed to immediately jump-start the faltering economy because not enough members of the opposition party supported the stimulus bill.
If nothing else, Todd's absurd query highlighted the unheard-of double standard the press constructed for the new Democratic president. Namely, when addressing the issue of bipartisanship (i.e. "involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties") the press decided to hold only one of the political parties accountable: the Democrats. Bipartisanship was now something Democrats had to bring to fruition.
My bookend quotes capture how the "liberal" Beltway press corps changed the rules to cover Gore at the beginning of the decade and Obama at the end of it. And how did the same press corps spend the years between Gore and Obama? Lying down for Bush, of course. Having developed rabbit ears for the right-wing taunt of "liberal media bias," reporters, editors, producers, and pundits seemed determined during the Bush years to prove how un-liberal they really were. In the process, the press abandoned its traditional watchdog role and morphed instead into lapdogs.
Read the full Media Matters column here. ]]>According To Its Ethics Code, NPR Still Has A Fox News Problemtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3923912009-12-15T09:02:27-05:002009-12-15T09:02:27-05:00Eric Boehlerthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/
And yet still, NPR finds itself struggling with the evergreen controversy that surrounds Mara Liasson and Juan Williams, two well-known NPR voices who regularly appear as commentators on Fox News. Last week Politico reported that NPR news executives approached Liasson and asked her to re-think her weekly Fox News appearances. (She declined to cut her contractual Fox News ties.) And in February, the same NPR bosses asked that Williams no longer be identified as an NPR journalist when he appeared on The O'Reilly Factor.
If NPR bosses don't want the network's name associated with The O'Reilly Factor, and if they asked Liasson to re-think her Special Report and Fox News Sunday appearances, then that confirms there's a problem that ought to be resolved. Why else would the issue keep popping up? And the problem is this: A thoroughly respectable and professional operation like NPR has no business associating itself with Fox News these days, by lending its status and credence to an utterly irresponsible enterprise like the one Roger Ailes is running. Consequently, by continuing the association, NPR is doing real damage to its brand and its hard-earned credibility.
The need for action is confirmed by NPR's own ethics code, which specifically spells out why the Fox News-type of alliance is such a bad idea. And yet, at least publically, NPR executives continue to duck the matter. I'm not sure what all the dithering is about, the issue does not appear to be that complicated.
Today, NPR remains publically, and stubbornly, aligned with an organization that makes a mockery of NPR's own ethical standards, a cable outlet whose employees would be summarily fired from NPR for the seemingly countless and chronic journalism transgressions they make.
Read the full Media Matters column here.
]]>The End Of The Wash. Times And Rev. Moon's Right-Wing charitytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3838482009-12-08T09:14:49-05:002009-12-08T09:14:49-05:00Eric Boehlerthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/Washington Times afloat.
With the announcement that 40 percent of the Times' staff is getting pink-slipped, and that the daily's no longer even going to bother with traditional who/what/where/when/why reporting, instead publishing an opinion-heavy publication that will be free of charge at a diminished number of local outlets, Times owners look like they're angling to be a Weekly Standard wannabe, churning out lots of predictable GOP Noise Machine opinion prattle. What is clear is that the daily's days as a functioning newspaper are now over.
R.I.P. The Washington Times.
At this time of reflection, it's worth pondering two rather astonishing facets about the Times and its bizarre life and looming death. The first is the deep irony of how the Times, a clarion voice of partisan right-wing values, was run as a charity for nearly three decades and whose business model made a mockery of the free-marketplace system supposedly cherished by conservatives. The second is the even deeper irony of how the Times was owned by a delusional prophet whose apocalyptic visions made an even bigger mockery of the Christian values supposedly cherished by conservative activists.
Indeed, the woeful daily has for decades stood at the center of a Beltway marriage-of-convenience for the ages, as conservatives nearly developed cataracts turning a collective blind eye to the glaringly obvious contradictions that Moon's worldview created with conservatives.
]]>For The Press, Hating Obama = "Populism"tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3753222009-12-01T11:30:41-05:002009-12-01T14:37:38-05:00Eric Boehlerthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/
Why?
Rallying people around a sweeping -- and at times uncontrollable -- hatred of the president, and trying to demonize him at every turn? That's not "populism." And relentlessly painting the federal government as being an intrinsic evil that must be beaten back with physical violence if necessary? Sorry, folks, but that's insurrectionism.
And besides, since when do so-called populists claim the president's a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred of white people," and who wants to put a spike in the heads of babies? Since when do populists call for a military coup to overthrow the White House, constantly compare the president to a Nazi, denounce him as a "small, petty and spoiled man," and pull their kids out of school in order to make sure they're not "indoctrinated" by the president?
During the 1990s, the black helicopter/militia crowd spread all kinds of similar hate smears and anti-government conspiracy theories about the Clinton administration (i.e. the New World Order). But the Beltway press didn't anoint those crazies as "populists." So why should today's right-wing radicals, and their media rabble-rousers, get to bask in the feel-good "populist" glow?
]]>Palin's Book And Obama's Bow: A Media Week To Forgettag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3673252009-11-23T08:10:39-05:002009-11-23T08:10:39-05:00Eric Boehlerthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/
Why? Because the book and bow represented the easy, lazy, and safe thing to do last week. And among media elites, those remain three irresistible forces. (Raise your hand if you heard even one insightful comment about Sarah Palin amidst the TV cacophony last week.) That, along with the media's tradition of acquiescing to whatever production/distraction the GOP Noise Machine is cooking up, ensured the book and bow were elevated to breaking news status. Meaning, if it's a big deal to Drudge and Limbaugh and Beck and Malkin -- if they're all cheering it (Palin's book) or if they're all screaming about it (President Obama's bow) -- it must be news. In reality, of course, that's an awful way to run a newsroom assignment desk. But more and more producers and editors are gladly abdicating their responsibilities.
Not that long ago, serious journalists routinely ignored the noisemakers on the fringe, confident in their own ability to identify the news. Now, many inside the Beltway not only refuse to ignore the right-wing fringe, they look to it expectantly for "news" leads and soon find themselves filing pointless stories about whether the president's bow to the Japanese emperor was too deep. Or inappropriate. Or whatever the haters were carping about. (Of course, in news accounts, the unhinged haters are dressed up as Obama "critics.")
Not only did we see monumentally misguided decisions in obsessing over Palin's book release and even acknowledging the manufactured controversy of Obama's bow, but lots of the actual coverage was just atrocious. ABC News, in particular, seemed to embarrass itself in this regard.
]]>Why Is Rupert Murdoch So Clueless About Fox News?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3604122009-11-17T09:44:35-05:002009-11-17T17:10:53-05:00Eric Boehlerthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/
At least that's the gospel according to Rupert Murdoch this month.
In truth, thanks to Murdoch's recent laundry list of public falsehoods, we now know that Fox News' misinformation culture starts at the very top, inside the corner office of Murdoch, the CEO of News Corp., Fox News' parent company. It turns out Murdoch functions as his own one-man misinformation machine. Who knew?
But with his collection recent falsehoods regarding Fox News, a rather obvious question has been raised: How come Murdoch remains systematically uninformed about his controversial cable channel? The sad truth is Murdoch either has no idea what kind of programming Fox News now produces, or he's too embarrassed to watch and acknowledge it. Neither scenario is particularly flattering for the aging CEO.
Murdoch wants to pretend (at least to himself) that ratings are up because of the sterling and insightful news reports and opinion programs Fox News is producing. He doesn't want to sully his reputation by acknowledging the hate speech and faux journalism he profits off of because Murdoch, no doubt, wants very much to maintain his charter membership in the very clubby social circles that he's traveled in for years between Washington, D.C., and New York City (i.e. Murdoch likes being invited back to Charlie Rose's round table). It's where the very serious gather to discuss the very serious topics of the day. But, of course, Fox News today is a purposefully un-serious operation. (i.e. Obama is nothing more than a lowly racist/communist/Nazi/fascist) And if Murdoch publicly acknowledged that, it would reflect poorly on him.
So, instead, he opts for the charade and he creates his own idea of what Fox News is today -- an idea that does not match reality.
Read the entire Media Matters column here. ]]>The Palin Press Orgy: Who Cares?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3567522009-11-13T10:37:09-05:002009-11-13T10:37:09-05:00Eric Boehlerthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/ From The Note [emphasis added]:
But this is Sarah Palin's world -- and that's really all we can see from our porches right now.
There may be no better example of the power and perils associated with the former governor of Alaska than what we'll see over the next week.
There is precisely one superstar in the Republican Party -- and she happens, by choice, not to hold elected office, or feel as if she owes much of anything to anyone in the party establishment. (And you thought tea parties might be dangerous?)
On this Friday the 13th, the Palin craze is starting a few days earlier than anticipated -- with Oprah and an early copy of the book coming before the Barbara Walters interviews next week.
And from ABC's George Stephanopoulos, who claims Palin's book release is the biggest to hit the Beltway in nearly 15 years:
Can she recapture the Palin magic that made her a political phenomenon? Make herself a force beyond her staunch cultural conservative base?
I suspect that Palin, like Powell, will ultimately decide that a race is not for her. But the opportunity is there. No one else in politics aside from Obama can attract more cameras, mics and blog posts
What seems to be missing from the avalanche of coverage is any indication that people outside the professional Beltway class, and her right-wing base, actually care. I'm sure Palin's book, thanks in part to a cut-rate, give-away price, will end up on the best-seller's list. But authors do that all the time.
In terms of larger context, I'm not aware of any polling data that indicates Palin has a prayer of being elected president. In fact, the latest CNN survey finds that a strong majority of Americans think she is singularly unqualified to run the country. (i.e. She's relegated to Dan Quayle territory.) And of course, she's coming off her stint as VP candidate on the GOP ticket that lost an electoral landslide last November.
So I guess my question is, besides the larger and authentic one (i.e. who, besides journalists and GOP partisans, cares about Sarah Palin?) is, has the press ever treated an election loser the way it now treats Sarah Palin? Has the Beltway press ever turned an election loser like Palin into a political rising star, even though there's no evidence to suggest her stature has changed since last November's embarrassing thumping? (i.e. What "magic" is Stephanopoulos talking about?)
Just more liberal media bias, I suppose.
Crossposted at County Fair, a Media Matters for America blog.
]]>The GOP's Looming (Media) Civil Wartag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3525732009-11-10T14:18:48-05:002009-11-10T14:18:48-05:00Eric Boehlerthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/news organizations -- essentially co-sponsor political campaigns. We've moved well beyond the time when Fox News, for instance, leaned right and gave conservative candidates more air-time and tossed them lots of softball questions. We're now watching unfold a political reality where Fox News literally selects candidates and then markets them through Election Day.
There's a reason Dougg Hoffman (NY-23) described Glenn Beck as his "mentor" and pledged his "sacred honor" to uphold the "9 Principles and 12 Values" of Beck's 9/12 Project. There's a reason Sean Hannity wanted to "declare" Hoffman the election winner, and why Fox News' on-screen graphic read "Conservative Revolution?" when Hoffman was being interviewed (i.e. prematurely crowned) by Hannity on the eve of Election Day.
Hoffman's outsider bid, originally opposed by the Republican Party, was a media production, plain and simple, which means his loss was a media loss, as well.
Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich had it right when he told The Washington Times that Hoffman's rise as a third party candidate was the "result of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox News." Gingrich, who originally opposed Hoffman's candidacy, added: "This was not an isolated amateur; this is an entire movement."
Indeed, it's a media movement that's doing it's best to obliterate the line between journalism and politics. The looming problem for the GOP, though, is that the right-wing media can't pick winners and stands poised to rip the Republican Party apart.
]]>The Myth of Fox News' Ratings Spiketag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3435632009-11-03T10:04:24-05:002009-11-04T17:19:10-05:00Eric Boehlerthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/
It's just not true.
No matter how many times reporters and pundits made the claim, a detailed analysis of Nielsen ratings numbers clearly indicates that in the two weeks after the White House in mid-October sparked a media controversy by claiming Rupert Murdoch's channel was not a legitimate news organization, Fox News' ratings did not soar or go "through the roof." In fact, not only did Fox News' overall ratings not soar, they experienced no significant increase at all. Instead, in the two weeks following the initial verbal jousts with the White House, Fox News' total day ratings virtually flatlined.
Another example of the Beltway press not letting the facts get in the way of a good story? It sure looks that way. In this case, we saw nearly universal agreement among media elites that the White House decision to publicly call out Fox News was monumentally dumb, thin-skinned, short-sighted, and uncivil. (Paging the etiquette police!)
Everyone said so. Therefore pundits were certain that Fox News' ratings were way up and that Obama and his aides had made a huge tactical blunder. The ratings angle simply provided statistical ammunition for what the Beltway press corps already knew to be the truth: Fact-checking Fox News, in the immortal words of The Washington Post's CW-loving Sally Quinn, was "absolutely crazy."
Except it turns out none of that was true. There was no viewer stampede toward Fox News.
Read the full Media Matters column here.
]]>30 Reasons Why Fox News Is Not Legittag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3351222009-10-27T09:00:14-04:002009-10-27T12:43:03-04:00Eric Boehlerthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/
That's been the sad case for years. (Playing dumb about Fox News' partisan pursuits now qualifies as a Beltway intramural sport.) Indeed, the loophole, or the caveat, to journalism's gentleman's agreement has always been that the guidelines were voluntary and self-policing. There was no governing body, either within journalism or without, that regulated the product. The only collective deterrent from producing bad journalism, aside from rather lax U.S. libel laws, is a collective sense of shame, a shared feeling that making a factual error -- or worse, purposefully pushing false information under the guise of journalism -- was both unprofessional and unacceptable.
But clearly, Fox News does not share that sense of shame, because it's not part of the larger journalism brotherhood. Fox News doesn't feel like rules such as fairness, accuracy, neutrality, and independence apply, which is obvious since Fox News breaks those rules with stunning regularity. In fact, its programming day seems designed to break the traditional rules ad nauseam. That's what it's built to do. And if nothing else, Fox News is ruthlessly efficient.
So, Fox News has altered the game by unchaining itself from the moral groundings of U.S. journalism. And guess what? There is no industry shame being rained down on the outlet. The rest of the press not only doesn't complain, it defends Fox News and even apologizes on its behalf, which is what we've seen unfold for the last two weeks.