Attacking Fox News: The Wrong Thing to Do

"We are getting better and better at doing the wrong things. The more of this we do, the wronger we get. We must start doing the right things, even if we do them poorly at first."
- Peter F. Drucker, management guru

(Updated Oct 28th - See end of this essay)

So, the battle has been engaged. For many who consider Fox News to be anything but "fair and balanced," word that the Obama administration is actively calling Fox News out for being more talk radio than hard news organization must bring cries of "It's about time."

Well, I'm going to explain why it's not the time to be doing this... and why it's actually time to be doing the complete opposite. But first, a little background.

The New York Times published an overview of the situation on Friday, in which President Obama is quoted as saying:

"What our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes. And if media is operating, basically, as a talk radio format, then that's one thing. And if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another."

The article also says:

White House officials said, they noticed a column by Clark Hoyt, the public editor of the Times, in which Jill Abramson, one of the paper's two managing editors, described her newsroom's "insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio." The Washington Post's executive editor, Marcus Brauchli, had already expressed similar concerns about his newsroom.

So, we have (a) President Obama wanting the truth to be known about Fox News and (b) the White House being concerned that other news organizations -- including the New York Times -- are starting to think that what Fox News considers to be top news stories they should consider to be top news stories too.

As someone interested in our nation (and the world) moving forward rather than backward, this is a pretty negative sounding trend. So, why don't I think the Obama administration should be fighting it?

Two reasons: First, because it won't work. And second, because there's something the Obama administration could do that would.

Why it won't work.

Fox News does X, and the Obama Administration does Y. This is playing Fox News' game. It's sinking to their level. They say "Obama isn't a real American citizen." And the Obama administration says, "Fox News isn't a real news organization." Can it get any more like a name-calling fight in grade school than this? Well, it can, when the Obama administration (a) decides President Obama won't appear on Fox News's Sunday morning show and (b) tries to prevent White House Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg from being interviewed by Fox News as well. But then you start to have the other news organizations come to Fox News's defense.

In addition to the embarrassment of watching the Obama administration sink to Fox News's level, Fox News has many more hours a day to engage in these school yard fight type activities. They don't have a country to bring back from eight years of Republican miss-rule and a Wall Street crowd run amuck!

Some might way, "Yes, but it's important for the Obama administration to label Fox News as the arm of the Republican party they really are!"

Important to who? Not to the viewers of Fox News. They don't believe what the Obama administration says anyway. And not to Fox News itself. This is a badge of honor to them. And not to the other news organizations, who aren't going to suddenly start telling their viewers, "Fox News isn't a news organization." They will not level any judgment themselves. They will just continue reporting the fight.

And the rest of us? The progressives? We already know this about Fox News! So, other than a little emotional satisfaction (although I don't get any satisfaction, myself, from seeing yet another school yard fight taking place in the civic fabric of our society), we're not getting any real progress here at all!

What will work.

What do to? What to do? We've got this right wing organization that claims to be a news organization, and it's convinced a certain number of Americans that the Obama administration is up to no good.

Here's the first thing we need to do. We need to acknowledge that this is a news industry problem, not a Fox News problem. It's systemic within the industry. Lou Dobbs on CNN -- who has propagated the lies about President Obama not being an American citizen -- is just one example of how this isn't just about Fox News. Lying for ratings and profit-making purposes exists, as does letting entertainment masquerade as news for ratings and profit-making purposes. Arianna has been talking about this lately, pointing out how excessive and irresponsible the reporting of the Balloon Boy story was.

And here's the second thing. We need to acknowledge this problem has existed for a number of years, that it existed, in fact, even at the New York Times during the Clinton administration.

Joan Walsh wrote about this on Friday in Salon.com, in discussing Taylor Branch's book, The Clinton Tapes:

The Clinton Tapes makes clear that from start to finish, President Clinton was besieged by a vicious just-say-no GOP abetted by the perversely, inexplicably, cruelly anti-Clinton leaders of the so-called liberal media -- from the New York Times' lame crusades against Whitewater and Chinese donors and Wen Ho Lee, to the integrity-free "opinion" journalism by Maureen Dowd and, sadly, Frank Rich, to a whole host of other liberal media characters who couldn't shake their feeling that Clinton was a fraud, a poseur, a hillbilly, a cynic. Their trashy eight-year oeuvre will likely go down in history as the most spectacularly malevolent and misguided White House coverage ever -- and politically costly, since it also encompassed Vice President Al Gore and probably made George W. Bush president in 2000.

Once we acknowledge the problem is systemic within the industry, pre-dates George W. Bush's presidency, and includes the supposedly liberal side of the media too, we at least know what we're up against. We know that a portion of the mainstream media doesn't care if its facts are correct and would rather report on activities that are scandal-related than those that are progress-related. And we know this has been going on for years and that -- while it may be good for ratings -- it's not good for democracy.

As Jon Stewart once so eloquently put it (to the co-hosts of CNN"s Crossfire), "Please stop. You're hurting America."

Now I can hear you saying,"Ah, but you said we can't make these organizations stop. Trying to do so means lowering ourselves to their school-yard fight level."

Right. We can't make them stop. But we can change the environment in which this behavior exists so that it eventually stops because those news organizations stop it on their own. In the world of management, this is called, "The public demanding a higher quality product, once they know that such high quality is possible. It's the story of how "Made In Japan" went from meaning "junk" (in the 1950's) to meaning "world class quality" (in the late 1970's). Here's a link to this history, in case you're too young to know about it.

So, how do we do that for journalism? How do we get the public to know how much better America's journalism industry could be, so the public demands that they be given this higher quality product? By launching a nationwide campaign on the issue, one led by President Obama in conjunction with civic and cultural leaders from across the land. That's how!

It will be a campaign that recognizes two things: First, that the status quo really is "hurting America" because (a) it's pulling us apart rather than bringing us together, and (b) it focuses on extensively reporting on problems while rarely reporting on innovative solutions. And second, that strengthening, expanding, and inspiring what already works within the journalism industry is more effective than trying to stop what doesn't work.

President Obama is the perfect person to launch this campaign, because the speech that would re-frame the debate around constructive (rather than destructive) principles would be a lot like the speech on race relations that he made during his campaign for the Democratic Party nomination.

This will be an optimistic speech about the power of journalism to educate, to contribute facts and perspective that accurately report on the challenges we face as well as the possible solutions.

And it will be a speech built on an understanding of the power of innovation and continuous learning and improvement, which I believe President Obama instinctively has, even if he hasn't studied it from management gurus such as Peter Drucker, W. Edwards Deming, and Russell Ackoff.

Finally, it will be a speech that leverages the Federal government's existing program -- one began by President Ronald Reagan as, essentially, the proponent of the combined management philosophies of Drucker, Deming, and Ackoff: The Baldrige National Quality Program at National Institute of Standards and Technology.

For this reason -- that so much of this campaign will be grounded in the principles of innovation and the methods championed by the Baldrige Program -- I see civic leaders from America's corporate social responsibility movement promoting it as well. These business leaders -- whose commitments to the environment and to human rights represent the flip side of the "we're just in this for ourselves" attitude of Wall Street that disgusts so many American today -- would help begin balancing the public's perception of the business community by virtue of their participation in this campaign. Also, I happen to know that two of the people who run the largest CSR networks in America used to be journalists.

The New York Times article about the Obama administration going after Fox News ends by saying:

Fox News Channel certainly seems to be enjoying a row it considers ratings candy, having devoted hours of news coverage and commentary to the fight.

But White House officials said they were happy to have at least started a public debate about Fox.

"This is a discussion that probably had to be had about their approach to things," Mr. Axelrod said. "Our concern is other media not follow their lead."

Starting a public debate about Fox News is not what America needs. You don't prevent other media from going down a similar path by saying, "Don't' do the bad things others are doing." You prevent bad things from happening by suggesting and championing positive alternatives.

What the Obama administration -- and a great many others in America -- need to see is how much better our journalism industry can be. A High Quality Journalism Industry, one that presents both problems and solutions, that presents the constructive activities of the family of man, not just the destructive, can help bring an end to the culture wars that threaten the very fabric of our society.

I have personally discussed these issues with other participants in the Media Giraffe Project of the UMass - Amherst School of Journalism. This past September 12th, I presented my transformed vision for the journalism industry -- one that takes lessons from the career of Walter Cronkite -- by remote (Skype) hook-up at that project's Newshare.org event.

Here are links related to what I talk about in this video:

I referred to the innovative, solution developing research of organizations like the Rocky Mountain Institute, with its project to "green" the Empire State Building.

During my presentation, I played excerpts from the CBS Evening News announcement of the death of Walter Cronkite and of Pres. Obama's speech at the Walter Cronkite memorial on Sept 9, 2009.

I'll end this essay with a personal reflection on Fox News. Despite what they are best known for doing, the Fox Business News division is the only news organization to date that was curious enough about my writings on the future of capitalism to invite me on for an interview.

From this show's web site, you will find a link for downloading podcasts of entire shows (which are an hour long). The show I was on is the July 29, 2009 show, entitled "Is Capitalism Dead?" Here are two screen shots from my interview, which started half way through the show and lasted a bit more than 10 minutes. Connell McShane conducted the interview and Cody Willard was there to challenge what I was saying.

Curiosity and a willingness to put on the air experts who may not have been seen on the air before. Those are two characteristics of a high quality news organization. This is what the Obama Administration should be calling on all of America's news organizations to be!
----------------------------------
Update: Wednesday the 28th, 12:30AM

I am gratified by how much attention this article has attracted. Thanks to all who took the time to comment. I apologize for not commenting back to many of you. I want to make one overall point, however, again using the art and science of modern management:

When there is a fire burning, you naturally need to put out the fire. However, once the fire is put out, you are left no further along the journey to a better future than you were before. Sure, you are alive (not a sure thing, given that some fires can be life-threatening). But you're still where you were when the fire started.

There is a "fire" burning in America. That "fire" is the culture of baseless attacks... of lies used as weapons in an environment in which fact checking by the mainstream media has largely fallen victim to a perverted commitment to "presenting both sides". I say "perverted", because if in "letting both sides speak" the media allow lies to have equal time with truth AND don't point out which side is lying - then the media is failing in its primary duty... which is to help America have a well-informed electorate.

I intentionally wrote this essay the way I did because I want to help extinguish this "fire" that is "lies getting equal time with the truth"... and I see no evidence that Fox News or its viewers will change what they are doing if all they hear is "You're bad. Stop doing what you're doing."

What I've learned from the field of modern management is that there's another way to eliminate that which doesn't work. There's another way to eliminate this sort of behavior. And that is to change the larger culture in which that behavior exists, so that that behavior becomes obsolete.. and, as a result, stops of its own accord... because it no longer has a reason for being.

The best example I can think of is smoking. Years ago it was considered the thing to do. Look at those old movies. Everyone smoked. Now - thanks to public awareness campaigns and industry acknowledgment that their product is harmful - many fewer people smoke. (From 1965-2006, smoking in America has gone from 42.0 - 20.8 percent.)

If we create a culture that prizes truth-telling... because it is recognized as an essential ingredient in building a better future for us all... then we will have changed the game... changed the nature of our civic dialogue.

When you build a building (and I used to be a civil engineer, so I know this directly), you have to tell the truth about what you're doing or the building will fall down and people will die.

Well, there's a remarkably exciting world out there waiting to be built... a world where there's much less conflict than we have today... and much greater prosperity for the vast majority of people. We'll never get to build that world if the Civil War (the cultural civil war) we are engaged in continues.

But we won't stop this civil war just by wishing it away. We need a concrete reason for stopping it. We need a vision of what we could have if we stopped it to motivate us to make the behavioral changes required. By stopping smoking, a lot of people have made behavioral changes in order to stay alive. That's changing your behavior to stop something bad from happening.

I'm thinking it's time to have a positive reason to change our behavior... a positive reason to start telling the truth. Once again, President Obama and our nation's socially responsible civic and business leaders, could present this positive vision of the future to us. Visions For Tomorrow (the NBC Universal public service initiative) could play a powerful role in this. And this could be organized to take place at next June's Leadership Summit of The UN Global Compact (the UN initiative through which corporations such as Microsoft, Disney, G.E., and Ford are working on ways to make the world work better while still making money).

The time has come to start making truth-telling more important than lying... by making people see that our lives (all of our lives) depends on it... and that, by telling certain truths about the sociological options for the human family here on Earth, we can motivate this change through the power of the good it will help make happen (not just the bad it will help stop from happening).

 

Follow Steven G. Brant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SteveBrant

Comments

[CrankyCurmudgeon]

Another excellent article, Steve. This is the most modulated, careful, and thoughtful approach I have come across regarding how to deal with the mainstream media's unfortunate tendency to exalt form over content, i.e. fluff over substance. I agree completely with your point that Fox is hardly the only news organization guilty of this practice; merely the most egregious.

I do have one beef with you, though. You described Peter Drucker, W. Edwards Deming, and Russ Ackoff as "gurus". Keep that up and there will be seismic shifting from the three of them rolling in their graves. I know you know better than that. (Rick) ;-)

[yankees]

Great article!!!! Now if only the White House and Huffington Post would follow your advice we have more important issues to deal with.

[Bil-Zai]

I live in the middle east. No Not a fanatic islamist with an access to the internet as some "liar" Media have always stereotyped.

I have been following on this issue Fox/US. Media & White House arguments/ conflicts for a while. This is the first time i read a balanced, civic and visionary article about this very American issue.

this is an opinion that puts US citizens fabric as a priority. a well informed article that calls for changing the bigger culture. I don't know how much this is applicable. I don't know how much the right wing would welcome such initiative of having President Obama campaigning for the "culture of telling the truth for the benefit of Americans". and I don't know what the barriers could be. Still I do believe that this would not only help American's but the world too.
thanks to the author for sharing his vision and the relevant links

[JazzyJim]

Why give credence to something that is pure and obvious propaganda and brainwashing?

Journalism is based on research and fact - not lies, opinions, smear, hate and fear campaigns for one ideology.

The WH was 100% RIGHT for calling out the anger and hate that is Faux; it's an infomercial for Rupert Murdoch, whom gets tax breaks to help his GOP and Lobbyist buddies. He's losing $50 Million on his NY Post - he's not revamping - he's selling "propaganda". He doesn't have to make money with ads - his "tax breaks by the GOP is MONEY IN THE BANK". He makes money off the Insurance Lobbyist to spread their lies and continue bilking American Citizes (i.e., money for Tea baggers, Town Hallers, Birthers) any one that can keep the status quo for the big business. Fox works for the Big Business with the best deals at America's expense. Fox covers none of these things. They are smear, hate and fear mongers. At America's expense.

[BuzzingAlong]

The WH is not talking about Fox.

The so-called media is talking about the President and Fox being at war.

What war? The so-called media, with a few exceptions*, stood by for eight years while George ran roughshod over the the country. Instead fighting a war of their own creation for Fox, why don't the fight for the truth in news reporting. I don't remember any of the hacks on calling out Fox as they smear and lie to destroy other peoples lives and careers.

Did jake Tapper or Chuck Todd stand up to Bush when he removed Helen Thomas from her seat in the front row the back row of the press room?

Did they stand up to Bush when the Bush adm did not grant a single interview to the NYT for one year?

So, I guess it is ok for Fox to smear the current adminstrations staff?

[GreshamGuy]

The White House is fine with the current situation. They no longer have to say anything about Fox - the mainstream media are running with the story. Fox News is all over this, showing indignation, being touchy as a cat in a roomful of rocking chairs.

The narative has changed. It's not about the "socialist" President, the "NazI" czars, Glenn beck's lunacy, or Bill O'Reilly's posturing. It's all about Fox News.

This was really a master stroke. The White House starts the ball rolling and watches what happens. Not bad at all. Minimal investiment for miaximum return.

By the way - did you notice that health care is closer to reality?

[GHARDY]

You are exactly right.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Mr Prsident;
Please allow those nasty folks over at Fox to step all over you, distort everything you have to say and organize protests against you.

Isn't it freedom of the press to be able to lie and make up stories about the legitimacy of our president?

Now be a good obedient public servant and do not respond to untrue horrific statements made about you, just remain silent and take it, otherwise some people might think you are assaulting the sacrosanct fifth column, which you are not.

Mr President it would pain me tremendously if you did not respond to lies about you and your policies, so far I could not be more ecstatic that you are our president.

[JohnnyChristmas]

Deliberate misinformation with the intent of subverting, destabilizing, OVERTHROWING an administration is sedition, if not treason. Calling out these liars is about the only responsible thing the Obama administration can do. We live in trying enough times without propagandists working against those who are actually attempting to help.
Rational minds don't need a 'news' outlet that confirms their world view. The TRUTH is sufficient.
The real slippery slope of it all is in the minds of the less intellectually well endowed. Starting with just regular 'stupid', propaganda foments 'scary stupid', and if unchecked, eventually foments 'weapons grade stupid'.

[Gene Gutierrez]

Ignorance should not go unchallenged.

[JazzyJim]

If you're part of the GOP - it is celebrated. 8 years of Bush.

[FogBelter]

Since when is stating a fact a problem?

Fox "News" isn't a legitimate news organization ... it is a Right Wing Propaganda Mill.

I compare Fox "News" product to a Newspaper I own from when Manila was occupied by the Japanese during WWII, dated June 8th, 1944, in which was hailed the crushing defeat of Allied forces attempting to land on the French Coast by the valiant German Army. Of course it was coverage of the D-Day landings ... which everyone knows the Germans thwarted.

[SEIUEnforcer]

Obama is proving his lack of experience with his whining. Fox news is picking on me!
Grow up and be the President! Every Republican President had ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSDNC and FOX hitting them. Fox is the only network not rolling over when Obama denands.

Fox was the most balanced during the campaign and still is. The big change you libs can't stand is we finally have a real Fair and Balanced network instead of a Democrat cheering section and the audience is moving to Fox. I though Obama would be worse thab Carter, but it looks like he will be more like Nixon instead!

[Joel Redman]

No one is complaining about Fox News picking on anyone. They are NOT a news organization.

You have the manufactured Tea Parties, the birther movement, and the killing your grandma all being reported as if they were true news on this network. They were the only news organization that didn't report on the Equality march a few weeks back,. Every time a congressman or senator has a scandal it gets reported with a D next to their name. This is neither fair nor balanced. It is pure propaganda for the right wing.

[CatTheGadfly]

(Don't forget to emphasize that it is generally an INCORRECT "D" next to his/her name, which they do customarily "correct" [in quotes here only because it is done so often that it is obviously not a mistake -- actually, if I were a FOX viewer, I woudl be insulted by now...] but do not actually retract in a formal statement)

[JazzyJim]

The President *isn't whining. Fox is.

[Dunelm]

Some interesting ideas, but I disagree with the basic premise that the Obama Administration is wrong to call Fox out on their lies. I think we need to counter all lies for what they are--too long we have talked about "interpretation," "disinformation," and so on. Also, The Obama Admin. is doing what I call "consciousness raising." Certainly, hard core righties will not stop watching and believing Fox; however, there are a lot of people who may be prompted to question Fox's "opinions," and who may start to look for further evidence. I can only hope.

[GrahamInCanada]

Fox is to news as the World Wrestling Federation is to sports.

Pretending WWF is sports is like pretending Fox is journalism. To launch a campaign to raise the professionalism and timbre of sports would effect WWF as much as a campaign to raise the prefessionalism and timbre of journalism would effect Fox: not at all.

Allowing the pretense of WWF simply plays into its game; allowing the pretense of Fox simply plays into its game; calling WWF and Fox entertainment is accurate and clears the path to clarity.

[solopico]

It is a shame that you do not even deal in facts as you write your opinion piece.

Fox News never stated that Barack Obama is not an American citizen. Some fringe elements of the far right may have said such things, but never did any one host of a show on Fox News Channel ever say that Obama is not an American citizen.

However, since you're preaching to the choir here, your tune sounds good to them.

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

Please, don't say "You don't even deal in facts" as if that's enough to prove I don't use facts in my writing. Here's my proof that Fox News has supported the "birthers" movement...
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905280018
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/29/tommy-seno-obama-birthers/
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/29/tommy-seno-obama-birthers/
I will never understand why people like you think calling people liars when they aren't is all you need to do.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
If you do this again, I will report you as a not-interested-in-honest-debate trouble-maker.
Grow up, solopico!

[solopico]

Sir,

With all due respect, Media Matters is not a credible source of information. They have been proven on more than one occasion to edit and manipulate audio and video to fit their agenda.

When you begin your article with a generalization and do not provide direct sourcing, you discredit your entire work and in the process are doing nothing more than manipulating your audience.

And please, do not fall into the trappings of personal attacks by telling me to grow up. I would expect better of someone who is posting an article on such a major website.

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

One of my links got posted twice. Here's the third link I meant to include in my reply..
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910130030

[Dunelm]

Solopico seems to be a "True Believer" (read Eric Hoffman's book of that title).. True believers will disregard all facts that do not fit their ideology. I find them quite scary.

[Steve Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

(reply part one)

solopico writes:

"Sir,

With all due respect, Media Matters is not a credible source of information. They have been proven on more than one occasion to edit and manipulate audio and video to fit their agenda.

When you begin your article with a generalization and do not provide direct sourcing, you discredit your entire work and in the process are doing nothing more than manipulating your audience.

And please, do not fall into the trappings of personal attacks by telling me to grow up. I would expect better of someone who is posting an article on such a major website."

There you go again, solopico, claiming something is so (in this case, the blanket statement that Media Matters is not credible) and providing no proof. You accuse me of not sourcing my article? Try doing more than throwing mud at people (or organizations) in your comments.

And try looking carefully when I give examples. Perhaps then you'll notice that one of my three examples was a like to Fox News, not to Media Matters.

I told you to grow up because you're acting like a child. When you start showing signs of maturity (and using words like "sir" proves only that you know how to be polite) when commenting on my work, I'll be the happy to acknowledge it.

[Steve Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

(reply part two)

Media Matters is run by people. And people sometimes make mistakes. That does not invalidate the work of an entire organization for all time. Sorry, solopico. This is your second warning. If I find you doing this a third time.. then it's three strikes and your out.

Don't make blanket statements without providing factual evidence - real facts, not opinions - to back it up. And don't skip over examples that are direct links to the organization we're talking about rather than being to an organization that watches over the organization we're talking about.

[JonathanDS2U]

When Americans are so less-than-intelligent that they think Fox News is a genuine news organization (which is like thinking an infommercial is designed to be an objective study of a particular product), we need a very direct president taking a very direct action, as Obama has. The suggestion that he first endeavor to rectify all that is questionable about the way news organizations handle things is too much like creating a committee to study the committee that formed a committee to study a committee. Let's need impede real action by weighing it down with great altruism.