Fox News: Unfair & Unbalanced

The only time I'm forced to suffer the myopic, unceremonious on-air "talent" at Fox News is every other week when I visit my plain-spoken barber, Larry, who has cut my ever-graying hair and shared his unvarnished and liberal-to-centrist opinions for nearly 35 years.

Although Larry doesn't tune into Fox News as much as he used to on occasion he still dials in to the blowhard Bill O'Reilly, and probably also listens to the blow-harder Sean Hannity and the blow-hardest Glenn Beck on the days I'm not there.

Although no fan of those three media and cultural lightning rods, Larry watches their histrionic performances to stay clued in to what the enemy, as he calls them, is talking about and focusing on. That's the best way to know what you're up against, he contends, and to plan counter attacks, when and if necessary.

Now, on the heels of the ostensibly just-ended drama between Fox News and the Obama White House, now is an ideal time for people across the ideological aisle and old school, traditional journalists alike to wonder aloud about the legitimacy of Fox News' claim that the operation is fair and balanced and a genuine news source that ranks at or near the top of cable TV ratings not because of its sensationalist slants and its "talents'" bombastic outbursts, but because of the integrity and veracity of its news operation.

However, truth be told, Fox News is as fair and balanced as water is dry.

Put another way, that operation with both sycophants and critics alike following it these days for its ability to stay in the news as much as the station reports the news is as fair and balanced as Detroit is prosperous.

Because I voted for Barack Obama, and because I was figuratively raised on the Associated Press Stylebook and because I received a quality news/editorial journalism education, among other personal and professional reasons, I am not wired or predisposed to believe that a cable TV personality's appearance should almost always include a blistering or skeptical partisan attack on just about any person, place or thing that doesn't mirror the anchor's (or station's) political notions about what should be done, by whom and when.

Said differently, it's readily apparent that Fox News despises the president of the United States. The station's on-air "talent," management and guests almost universally appear to hate the man, detest the fact that he won the election, loathe his policies, dislike his appointments, abhor his decision to take his wife out on a so-called date night, and likely, are disgusted by the contour of his bottom lip and the length of his fingernails.

When one of their most renown "talents" in Glenn Beck opined that he believes the deep-seated hatred for white people," it was clear that if the president's communications team nevertheless unconditionally engaged Fox News going forward, their actions would epitomize magnanimity to the highest degree.

That didn't happen. When el presidente recently appeared on all of the other network talk shows to tout his still-divisive healthcare plan, the fine folks at Fox News weren't on his list of things to do and places to visit. In response to questions of why Fox News was marginalized, the White House called them "an ideological outlet" and not a legit news gathering and reporting entity.

Really. You think?

As reported in a Chicago Tribune editorial, "White House communications director Anita Dunn called Fox 'the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.' Her deputy, Dan Pfeiffer, said the administration 'decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional news organization.'"

David Axelrod, the president's senior adviser, even chimed in that Fox is "not a news organization." He added that bona fide journalists -- who still believe that the word objectivity has some level of import in their profession -- "ought not to treat them that way. We're not going to treat them that way."

The Tribune editorial agreed with Fox News' Chris Wallace that the president's handlers were "the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington" in light of the White House's attempt to bypass Fox News and prevent one of the station's reporters from participating in interviews with Kenneth Feinberg, who is leading the charge to determine the level of compensation for executives at companies bailed out by the Obama administration. The White House relented on that decision.

Fox News is great entertainment. When Hannity protested Obama's speech to schoolchildren, which turned out to be much ado about nothing," why get angry? I believe in the First Amendment, journalism school and the Fourth Estate. I also believe that when clowns do funny things, you should laugh.

If I want real, objective reporting, rather than trying to stomach Fox News, I'd rather buy the National Enquirer.

Same difference.

 

Comments

[CynAnne]

The problem, simply stated, is that the typical Faux viewer reads that 'Fair & Balanced' logo that's always popping up, like boils on infected skin, and in their self-induced naivete they assume it to be 'truth in advertising'..as opposed to the oh-so-ironic marketing slogan that it is, in actuality. They've let Faux 'do the thinking' for them, and now they just parrot the talking points they receive, without doing any fact-checking (which, of course, would require independent thought - an idea most definitely discouraged by Master Murdoch)...

[DM59]

I wouldn't watch Fox as much if there were any news outlets that would challenge the Obama administration about anything. I haven't watched the traditional big 3 (ABC, NBC, and CBS) since about 1990 because I realized that they tend to try to sway public opinion by the way they present the news. They didn't lie, they just would leave out a few facts.
Even if Fox is just presenting an opinion that opposes the policies of the current administration, shouldn't we still consider what is being reported? Or do you think it would be better if we all just ignored any opposing views and follow along with what the president wants and not question his judgements or ideals? Bury your head in the sand, that's the solution! Not everyone is so enamored with the president that we are unable to fairly judge his goals for the country.
It's unfortunate, but Obama is too much of a celebrity to be an effective leader.

[Derrick Baker - Huffpost Blogger]

Opposing views are central to a Democracy, but when ultra-partisan politics are disguised as objective journalism -- as in using "fair & balanced" as your brand, then hypocrisy and deceit are the order of the day.

[MimiGardner]

It's not so much the clowns that should concern us but the circus owner, Rupert Murdoch. He is the modern day equivalent of William Randolph Hearst except he has a bigger media empire and he's Australian.

[blackhole2008]

I think when they say they are fair and balanced, they may be referring to hair, and checkbooks.

[xypher0725]

lol...nice

[American For All]

Whatever Fox is doing, it's apparently working.
Obamacare will not pass and three hotly contested elections will favor Republicans today.
More kool aid, please!!

[redhead55]

Well, repubs got their govs, Dems got two members of Congress. Gee, wonder who came out ahead?

[itolduso]

But some 'clowns' are dangerous.­.....remem­ber John Wayne Gacy?

[ldmason45]

Another story whinning about FOX News. This is so old and overdone. I don't like msnbc's liberal slant 24/7 so I turn the channel. Again, Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly are not the actual FOX News team. They are political talk commentators with their own show on FOX News. This comparison would be like me saying Oblberman, Matthews and Maddox are news anchors because they are on the msnbc cable channel. Move on, you act like a bunch of crybabies and sore losers.

[Derrick Baker - Huffpost Blogger]

If Olbermann, Matthews and Maddox, for starters, were more effective punchers than counter punchers to Fox News' looping overhand blows, they'd likely have more credibility among even their own followers.

[redhead55]

Jon Stewart slammed Faux News just recently. Hilarious - ought to watch it and learn a few things.

[TrooAmerican]

You Forgot "Unhinged" as well.

[JerryLevy]

I agree with this. Why can't we go back to the good old days when we could get biased opinionated reporting disguised as news like we get now from CNN, NPR, and NBC? Those were good days before FOX when the stories reported were simply parroting that of the democratic party and there were no other sources.

[LMPE]

I only see Clusterfox when Stewart/Co­lbert/Olbe­rmann/Madd­ow/Huff Po rerun clips from it.

[radiclib]

.
.
We watch Fox the way cops monitor a high-crime neighborhood and doctors monitor the spread of a contagious disease.
.
.

[SueMVetforObama]

2

Hard core republicans are now mailing dog poop to Senators and Reps with whom they disagree.

Unbelievable!

[Wendy Johnson]

Fake dog poo (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/10/30/erickson/index.html). Pity, I was having fun picturing the te@.b@g gers with their hands full of tu.rds, trying carefully to stick them in envelopes.

[ThermoChemist]

Content analysis of O'Reilly's rhetoric finds spin to be a 'factor' [May 2007]
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/5535.html

The seven propaganda devices include:

* Name calling -- giving something a bad label to make the audience reject it without examining the evidence;
* Glittering generalities -- the opposite of name calling;
* Card stacking -- the selective use of facts and half-truths;
* Bandwagon -- appeals to the desire, common to most of us, to follow the crowd;
* Plain folks -- an attempt to convince an audience that they, and their ideas, are "of the people";
* Transfer -- carries over the authority, sanction and prestige of something we respect or dispute to something the speaker would want us to accept; and
* Testimonials -- involving a respected (or disrespected) person endorsing or rejecting an idea or person.

[javadrinker]

I would say that also describes MSNBC, too. So between the progressive liberal bias on MSNBC and the slanted conservative bias on FOX we have balanced news and that is why I watch both channels. The problem is CNN is also progressive liberal biased so that is two against one, not fair (just like this article).

[marvm]

but msnbc don't tell lies like fixnews they are close to the facts even with them being one sided for the dems

[TheOpinionGuy]

MSNBC does not create its own news in order to cover it. FoxNews ACTIVELY promoted the TeaParty Protest, going so far as to announce which protests it would send its "non-news talent" would visit. It was exactly like when a radio station does a promo from an event and invites people down to meet on-air personalities. No legit news organization manufacturers its own news.

FoxNews also allows its "non-news talent" to raise issues so that the "news talent" can say, "Some people have criticized...." That's not news either. That's self-citation for the purpose of creating news. MSNBC does not do that either.

FoxNews also printed word for word a Republican press release (complete with the typo the original had). Once again, MSNBC does not do such things either.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/33441578#33441578

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-e-burns/fox-news-is-the-story-wit_b_330102.html

[Wendy Johnson]

"I would say that also describes MSNBC, too."

Why would you say that, and based on what? ThermoChemist makes some pretty detailed criticisms of O'Reilly's strategies. When and how have you seen those same strategies used on MSNBC?

People love to say Fox and MSNBC balance each other out, one on the right, the other on the left. They have very little credibility without giving specifics.

[minerva117]

To paraphrase Stephen Colbert "The truth has a liberal bias". Faux snooze wouln't know the truth if it marched up and bit them in their nether parts!

[Derrick Baker - Huffpost Blogger]

Great post.

[thstone]

Mr. Baker - are you not also "an ideological outlet"? Sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black. Also sounds like someone can dish it out but can't take it.

My advice to you: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

[Derrick Baker - Huffpost Blogger]

For 17 years, I've openly written a general interest opinion column titled "The Way I See It." I've never once purported to be fair and balanced like Fox. How in the world do they expect anyone who they mercilessly lambaste to not speak up for themselves and against them. The decision-makers and on-air talent there are far too thin-skinned to be as vitriolic as they are.

[papistolpacker]

I am so sick of ALL the people in Washington DC. Democrats, Republicans, ALL OF THEM. We need term limits so people who have NOT been corrupted by the SYSTEM in DC can have a say. These over paid premadonas are taking us into the toilet with them and their corrupt ideaS. iF THEY WOULD SPEND AS MUCH TIME WORKING FOR US, THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THEM, AND NOT AS MUCH TIME WITH GETTING RE ELECTED, WE WOULD HAVE A GREAT COUNTRY! I am talking about Dems AND Republicans. They have all lost touch with the reason they are there. To serve US, their constituants. NOT JUST GETTING RE ELECTED!!

[PWM]

I agree. No one should serve in say the House for more than 5 terms, or the senate for more than 2 terms. 12 years is enough.

The Supreme Court also needs a mandatory retirmement after something like 12 years.

[Colorado Bobby]

Term limits... yes
The congress needs to work for the people,not for re-election.

[BoThomasReed]

We have term limits, they're called elections.

Term limits create lame ducks who do whatever they want no matter what the people who elected them think.

Look at Bush, his worst term in office was easily his second term and how many times did we hear Dick Cheney say "we're not on the ballot" throughout that disastrous four years?

Term limits take government out of the hands of the people because our representatives are no longer held accountable once their name doesn't appear on the ballot anymore.

[Bloggerrogr]

Respectfully disagree, Bo;
Once elected the power of incumbency serves as an inertia to keep that elected official in office until that official (1) commits some really heinous, wanton felony (2) gets a higher-paying job in the private sector, made possible by holding that office, ironically, or (3) death.
When is the last time that we held anyone 'accountable' for their actions in DC?

FWIW

[jazzman]

I remember in psychology a professor telling me that the difference between normal behavior and mental illness is a matter of degree. He said, for example, we all get elated and sometimes feel down but this doesn't make us bipolar. It's the degree to which we experience our highs and lows.

The same is true of journalism. FOX pushes the outside of every journalistic standard in mixing partisan advocacy, ideology, opinion with its slant on the news. It has a self-conscious intentional ideological position which is always at the forefront of all their reporting, commentary, and opinion shows. Each reinforces the other in an attempt to sell a partisan political program to the American public. This makes them a propaganda channel masking as a news channel.

Other news organizations would do the American public a great favor by fessing up and admitting that they know this as well instead of circling the wagons around their sick sister channel in a defensive routine.

[blizb]

My question to Fox is how do they hire their staff??

I agree about the slant and I think they have to indulge in less than fair hiring practices to get that many people in one group that is supposed to be governed by journalist rules who all espouse the same political views.

I thought it was illegal to question new hires or potential new hires regarding their political persuasion. I think they have to break this law to hire the staff to go along with their view.

The same way many so called legal businessmen get caught on taxes I think Fox has to get caught on politics used in hiring.

They have no liberal or Democratic hosts and never allow programming of a liberal nature.

Many other networks have regular hosts or contributors that have more than one view.