|
||
The Fox Fairness Fantasy
Keith Olberman needs to go on red alert. Hillary Clinton says Fox News Channel has treated her more fairly in terms of coverage than MSNBC. Could it be that the channel using the most objectified, smutty and often inane images of women during the video feed that accompanies stories is mending its ways? Is it possible that Fox will soon allow women on-air who aren't talking blond mannequins? If so, Clinton will have cracked the mirrored ceiling in the penthouse of sexist television. Whether she wins the presidency or not, that's quite an accomplishment.
Hillary said she was referencing an "independent" study, probably the one by the Center for Media and Public Affairs which does have this finding: "coverage of the candidates on Fox News Channel's "Special Report with Brit Hume" was very similar to that of the broadcast networks. FOX's coverage of Hillary Clinton was evenly balanced -- 50% positive and 50% negative comments, compared to 51% positive and 49% negative on the "big three" networks. The tone of FOX's coverage of Romney and Obama was also within one percentage point of the broadcast networks." The report goes on to say that Fox has the most issue-oriented coverage compared to the networks.
Could I have been hallucinating all those times I've forced myself to watch Brit Hume and thought he was thoroughly un-tethered from the normal meaning of "fair and balanced?" Thankfully for my peace of mind, a quick look at the funders of CPMA provides the hint that they may be more than a tad biased. CPMA is underwritten by Scaife, Earhart, Olin, Bradley -- the usual suspects who keep the right-wing think tanks and their downstream TV and radio punditry in business.
I can see why Hillary might jump on a study like this without vetting it. She's really upset with MSNBC, and with good reason. Way, way back before she announced, she had Chris Matthews verbally pat her on the head and suggest that maybe she should just stay in the Senate and become Majority Leader before taking on the big, bad presidency. With a few bloopers in between, he graduated to recent comments about the source of her success resting on Bill's infidelity. For this he gave up a mea culpea. Then came the most recent demeaning imagery about Chelsea suggested by David Shuster, which earned him a hand-slap suspension.
It's enough to make even Fox News Channel look good to a female candidate. But they're not. Both Fox and MSNBC need more Keith Olbermans and Anderson Coopers, men who aren't afraid to call sexism by its real name. And, of course, they need more women who are hired for being smart and tough and in tune with women's concerns -- and who are allowed to look as pasty, flabby and disheveled as some of the men do.
I'm betting that if we had a woman president we would see a lot more women in those anchor chairs. In fact, Hillary could help that along. Eleanor Roosevelt used to hold women-only press conferences. Maybe Hillary should announce that if these men can't recognize and overcome their prejudices against women, she'll start doing the same.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
One study is never enough to reach a conclusion, as any good scientist knows.
For the last week we have been bombarded by MSNBC with hour after hour of Obama info-mercials while Hillary hate spews from the lips of Tucker, Chris, Tim, and company making Fox News look good these days. Even Keith in his Obama exuberance is failing to provide equal coverage. I can’t imagine what these boys mother’s did to them as children that they hate women so much. Wouldn’t it be awful to be one of their daughters.
I usually watch Keith O and Anderson Cooper but few others on the MSNBC and CNN. Anderson Cooper more so when he has projects or programing about the problems of the world and less when he goes along with the politics as he seems less objective with the politics or the Britney type stories. Most on MSNBC seem to be know it alls and tell us what "they" want us to believe rather than fair and balanced. On CNN they spout fair and balanced and they do have parts that come across with both views but at times they get heavy with apparent programing supporting a candidate and not allowing for the other candidate to respond. Sad to say but when I am supposed to watch a 15-20 minute speech by a candidate on a news channel as part of "news".
Hillary is right. Just watch Tucker on MSNBC. I can't believe it some times but Tucker is worse than any one at FOX! Right now he supports Obama. Watch if Obama gets the Democratic nomination. Tucker will then fabricate stories against him. It's like watching some spoiled little rich kid. I can only believe that Tucker is where he is because of his father's money and influence. He certainly is not there on merit.
Keith is just pissed that Schuster got caught. He, David and Chris are the biggest dissappointments of this primary season. Of course, they're smart enought to not be overt about it, but their sexist nature is barely veiled. I don't think I can ever watch MSNBC again.
Issue-oriented coverage! Hah! Yeah sure. But do they say what the issues are?
From Fox, the "issues" are promoting torture and 24-like unrealistic ticking time-bomb scenarios, gay-rights bashing and hating, and immigrant-bashing. Oh, and telling us all the time how Democrats are "weak" on terror and "hate" America and "don't support" our troops.
Those may be "issues" to some, but not to me.
It doesn't surprise me one bit that Fox News is far friendlier and has helped Senator Clinton more than MSNBC.
After all, Fox News wants a Republican to win the White House this year. That would be very difficult to do unless Mrs. Clinton is the Democratic nominee.
Hilary Clinton citing Fox News in a positive way for her campaign???? She really will say or do anything to become President..
Gosh. You sound like a huge admirer of Keith "Olberman."
I love Keith Olbermann (and you really should be able to spell that correctly), but I wouldn't praise him about sexism just because he piled on against his colleague David Shuster's disgusting comment about Chelsea Clinton.
Review Olbermann's comments about "Coultergeist" and a clear pattern emerges of linking negative comments about Ann Coulter to references to her "adam's apple" -- as if to say she is not only a hypocrite, but she's lying about her gender as well.
Exactly how are such gender-based cracks not sexist?
Exactly right.
Because I for one, BELIEVE him. I mean, it DOES have an adam's apple. And when Annie goes on TV and calls people "faggots" and worse, I think that gives ANYONE who wants to trash her back a compleste pass. (Did we mention she committed VOTER FRAUD and a FELONY and bought her way out of trouble by her connections? Yup. A TRUE Republican!)
I too, stopped watching MSNBC after a month or so into the primary race. It started as a Chris Matthews schtick, and ended up in everyone's show. I don't know if MSNBC was the cause, but they certainly didn't discourage the tone. After switching to CNN (and frankly being bored by Wolff) I too channel surfed to FOX. And its important to note that no one ever claims FOX is NICE to Senator Clinton. Because they aren't. But at least they balance their hatred of her with an equal dislike of Senator Obama. So that IS actually more fair. And that is disturbing.
MSNBC coverage has been so biased against her that even FOX is more balanced. This absolutely true. I have stopped watching MSNBC and now watch FOX from time to time. And I am a yellow dog democrat who has voted for Dems in every local, state and fed election since 1969. On Fox you get the one or two looney but at least you also get some straight shooters analyzing the primaries.
It is frankly pitiful but it's the truth.
The Clinton camp is chasing reporters down to get airtime at this point.
I'm personally peeved at the flagrant racism expressed by the big three news networks in their constant characterization of Obama as an inexperienced newcomer to politics with no background.
He has more experience than Bill Clinton did, is older, has more legislative experience than both Hillary and John Edwards, yet he's the inexperienced newcomer.
I abide it blandly because the media is narrative-obsessed, but the double-standard they treat him to smacks dully of racism. How do I know? Because I had to deal with the same double standards in life.
Questioning his lack of experience is hardly racism. Name calling would be, just like all of the gender bashing name calling that Hillary has been subjected to recently. Imagine if some one had stood up and said to McCain “How do we bet the N*****?” instead of “ How do we beat the bitch?” McCain would be dead in the water now.
I know it is uncomfortable to remember but that it took a village of many colors who walked with blacks for civil rights...I know I was one of them. That doesn’t make me better it just means that I understand that a wrong had to be righted. I think Obama is a great guy and in 8 years will be a terrific candidate. Unfortunately I have been around long enough to know that this year he will be crucified by the 527's. He has no idea of the freight train that is heading his way. Why do you think so many Republicans are voting for him?
Based on the ones I've spoken to, they're voting for him because they're upset with the current state of the Republican party so they started looking around to see alternatives.
They found a voice saying the system was broken in many of the same ways that they feel it is disfunctional.
They found a legislative record that doesn't say "I hate Republicans and will do whatever I can to destroy them." It says "I will work with anyone who is willing to come to the table to solve problems."
They found a leader who could inspire young people back into the process and excite them about changing the world.
They found hope.
Well done, it turned out to be Fox finds Fox fair. As a note, Fox no longer uses 'Fair' in their 'Balanced' title in San Diego.
I guess they are anticipating fighting the next fairness document and they don't want to confuse their viewers.
The study must have counted a positive comment on Fox about Hillary as any comment where nothing negative was said about her.
Nope, I'm betting they counted every bad thing said about Obama as Hillary positive.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
