“Is ‘Fair and Balanced’ ridiculous?” So opened the FOX News Watch segment examining Robert Greenwald‘s film, OutFOXed. And astonishingly, the uncontradicted view of FOX News Watch was “yes”! As Neal Gabler put it, “To say that this network promotes the Republican view … is like saying that the Pope is Catholic. It’s self-evident … pretty much undeniable.” But, he asks, as if he hadn’t actually seen the film, “So what?”
So what? Well first, start with the question that opened the segment: Fox says it is “Fair and Balanced.” If it is “self-evident” that it is not, then I guess we agree then that it is “ridiculous” to say that it is. And second, “obviously” media critics get this about Fox. Anyone who critically watches Fox gets this about Fox. But as one questioner at the San Francisco opening put it, for those who aren’t media critics, and for those who don’t actually watch Fox, just how “ridiculous” Fox’s claim is is something significant. My bet is that a cross-section of FOX viewers would be surprised just how false Fox’s claims actually are.
The discussion opened with Jim Pinkerton of Newsday calling the film “dull and didactic.” He then asserted that the film says that media networks are “either worse than the Mafia that ran Cuba in the 1950s or worse than the Soviet Union.” When I heard him say that, I understood why he saw the film as “dull and didactic”: if this is his view, he didn’t really watch the film. The opening allusion to the Mafia comes from Robert McChesney, where he compares how the Mafia carved up Cuba with how the government carves up media ownership — nothing to do with the media being “worse than the Mafia.” The allusion to the Soviet Union, also McChesney’s, again had nothing to do with Pinkerton’s claim. McChesney’s claim was simply that propaganda is most effective when the audience is unaware — unlike in the Soviet Union.
The other simple fabrication of Pinkerton was that the film comprised “two or three disgruntled employees.” That’s true if by “two or three” you mean seven (four listed here; three requested anonymity). But the more fundamental fabrication is the suggestion that the film’s claims are based on nothing more than the word of “two or three disgruntled employees.” The film has five independent sources for its “self-evident,” as Grabler puts it, conclusion: (1) former Foxies, (2) Fox memos (unmentioned by anyone on the show), (3) independent studies of Fox viewers, (4) media commentators, and (5) clips from Fox shows.
Cal Thomas — who was one of the people in the film — found the film flawed because it “ignored the many Democrats I’ve had on my show.” Again, not true. The movie never asserts that there are no Democrats, or liberals on the show. It just asserts — not denied by Thomas — that the “balance” is “unbalanced.” Indeed, in one of the best parts of the film, Greenwald reports a media group that studied months of Brit Hume’s “Special Report” and found over 80% of the guests on that premier show were Republican — and that most of the Democrats were centrists. Not balanced, and not a fair picture of the facts reported.
Thomas goes on (with his wonderful announcer voice — I love listening to him) to say something extraordinary however. Here’s the quote:
“I think the reason that this network looks so Republican … is by contrast on [sic] what the others do. If you went and did — as the Media Research Center has done — clips of what is said on the broadcast networks … you would find an enormous tilt to the left. So by contrast it looks conservative.”
I think we need more Media Research Centers on both the Left and Right and — imagine this — even without a political agenda! But I’ve not seen that they’ve put together “clips” as Greenwald has. And again, the film is comparing what Fox News actually is to what Fox News says it is.
Jane Hall (Who? She’s an assistant professor in the School of Communication at American University) complained the film was flawed because it left “out any evidence to the contrary.” There were plenty of liberals on Fox she said — for example, she said, she was a liberal. She also mentioned Jeff Cohen, cofounder of FAIR, was on Fox News Watch “for five years.”
Jeff Cohen? Actually, the movie not only doesn’t ignore Jeff Cohen. He is one of the most critical interviewees. And again, the film doesn’t say there are no liberals on Fox. The show instead reports Clara Frenk reporting that the “quality” of the liberals was far less than the quality of the conservatives — in the sense that the liberals were either “unknown” or “weak.”
Hall also repeated the total non-thought that has been framed around this film — that somehow the film is weak because it didn’t get Roger Ailes to respond. The film in fact has Roger Ailes stating Fox News was to be a fair and balanced news program. It also has Roger Ailes stating Fox News failed its viewers on election night by allowing George Bush’s cousin, on the basis of extremely weak data, to call the election for Bush. But even if it didn’t twice include Roger Ailes in the film, the idea that before you release a film critical of someone you must include their comment is inane. I’ve had many critical reviews of my work published, some very intelligent, some others not. Never has anyone asked me for my comment on their review before they publish it. Indeed, to do so would be unethical.
But my favorite part of the whole show is the contrast between segment one and segment two. The review of Outfoxed was in segment two. Segment one was about — I swear — “Media bias.” For a full segment, Fox News Watch focused on a single statement by Newsweek’s Evan Thomas. As Media Research Center quotes him,
The media want Kerry to win. They�re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic, and this glow is going to be worth maybe 15 points.”
This single quote by a single editor at a single magazine apparently proves, according to the show, that liberal “media bias” exists. Yet a film gathering (1) former Foxies, (2) Fox memos, (3) independent studies of Fox viewers, (4) media commentators, and (5) clips from Fox shows is, by contrast, “not that fairly put together,” said Eric Burns, the show’s host.
I guess they would know. They’re the trademark holder for the words “Fair and Balanced” (at least until the challenge to that trademark gets resolved).
Don’t you get it…….they have the hottest chicks…;)
Interesting. Just the usual non-response responses when people committed to a cause are accused. The Bush White House is the master of this technique, of course, regularly ignoring the actual arguments to criticize those who bring the arguments, for instance.
But on a more fundamental level, not even touched upon by Outfoxed (from what I’ve heard so far — I’ve not yet seen the film), is that all major media is conservative in a fundamental sense. What fundamental sense? Try getting ABC or NBC or CNN to suggest that America can have a realistic choice other than Republicans or Democrats. Try getting those networks to explore the ideas of radical change. It will never, ever happen. They are beholden as profit centers to their corporate owners, and the shareholders must be satisfied, and advertisers must be mollified, and that means you cannot rile up the viewers.
Conservative in a fundamental sense means maintaining the status quo. Fox may urge on the more right-ward candidates, and the other networks might be more neutral, or maybe even push the more central candidates, but there is no mainstream voice calling for any real, significant change in American politics. Anyone who tries (such as Nader) is ridiculed and marginalized to ensure nothing can come of it. That is conservative.
In response to Cal Thomas and his statement: � you would find an enormous tilt to the left. So by contrast it looks conservative., check out this report at FAIR, and scroll down to the sidebar No Balance From �Liberal� Media. All major news sources – even NPR – favour Repubs over Dems on their guestlists.
Well Nate,
The revolution will not be televised…
…because it only exists in your head. That’s the only place where Nader has a chance, and that’s the only place he’ll be getting much coverage…atleast until he costs Kerry the election.
Well Geoff,
When you’ve spent the last 50 years claiming “We’re right, and anyone who says different is an immoral, elitist, fat cat so I don’t need facts to prove it…I need to be right, so I must be right” as the vast majority of the Left has, you really lose the ability to participate in coherent debate. It is no wonder the Republicans, who actually have something interesting to say, and logic to back it up, dominate the interview segments. Nonetheless, simple numbers don’t mean squat in this case.
The number of Republicans or Democrats interviewed is meaningless. What matters is the way in which their points are portrayed and presented.
Anon,
It would be so convenient for the world if what you said were true. We could hear all the meaningless arguments we wanted all day and all night, and then hear one voice of reason once for 5 seconds and suddenly recognize the other arguments’ folly. I want to live in your fantasy, that sounds wonderful!
Far from being meaningless, the number of Republicans and Democrats interviewed influences how the Network portrays and presents their guests’ points. To give the Fox Conservative Opinion Network a pass for intentionally choosing guests you agree with is to fail as a citizen.
Ah, I love reading people tearing apart the stupid lies that neo-cons tell. It feels like justice being done. I suppose it’s because that’s exactly what it is!
It’s also really funny to observe how people are doing exactly what Lessig just called them on – denigrating people like Ralph Nader for speaking up, and calling everything they say as nonsense, simply because they don’t want to listen to a point of view that might actually cause good things to move forward, instead of this ass-backward doublethink nonsense game that neo-cons love to play so much. Not to mention, the childish namecalling that happens when you prove them wrong.
Look, folks, when you elect someone to office, it’s all about party politics. But when you discuss issues, it’s all about issues.
The issue here is whether “fair and balanced” is a reasonable motto for a news establishment. And who are you to say differently? Is the New York Times “All the news that’s fit to print”? Who are they to say that? It’s really all the news they feel you deserve. The NYT spikes stories too. All news organizations do. It’s called editing.
Let’s get real here. This is not about party politics. This is about perceptions. This is about the freedom of self expression. If Fox News feels they are “Fair and Balanced” and wants to say that, you’re free to disagree. However, muzzling them because YOU think they’re not “Fair and Balanced” is even worse than what you accuse them of.
“Fair” is, of course, a highly subjective term. “Balanced”, on the other hand, is measurable. When folks like FAIR count the number of representatives of different parties, or the number of interruptions, or the amount of time allotted to coverage of candidates, these are facts. Testable, falsifiable, but facts.
Fox could, of course, take anon‘s line and say “we’d like to be fair and balanced but we can’t:. Somehow I don’t think that would play as well……
And who’s muzzling Fox? Did I miss something?
Everybody here needs to get over it. Fox News and the conservative movement has hijacked these words for their point of view. Here’s how certain words or phrases should be read or heard:
�fair and balanced�= conservative
�unbiased�=conservative
�no spin�= Shout down the liberal opinion
�the final word�=what the conservative speaker always gets
Now whenever you hear those words emanating form anyone’s mouth you will know what they stand for.
Liberals have hijacked some words as well. Take “fair” and “fairness”; you will rarely here a conservative utter those words but you hear it from liberals all the time.
Ok, let me get this straight.
You’re bitching and whining because Fox is not as liberal as you want – and meanwhile, there are how many liberally-tilted networks that haven’t done a THING for free culture, for exposing the ills of the DMCA and PATRIOT Acts, over and over again?
Sorry Lessig. You’re a hypocrite on this.
Which liberally-tilted networks would those be? Most them present some degree of the neo-con slant. Fox is most guilty of this, especially since they pretty much handed Bush the 2000 election by declaring him the winner before he had “won”. It doesn’t help any that they gave quite a large financial contribution to his campaign.
There’s a reason that neo-cons don’t tend to use words like “fair”.. it’s because they either don’t exist in their vocabulary, and when they do, they just use them in some dubious, backward manner to make people think they’re good, while they do a whole lot of bad.
I find it interesting that my arguments remain ignored other than anon who wrongly assumed I’m in favor of Nader (I’m not). The networks are all conservative. It’s a Right Wing lie told over decades that have convinced people that there is a mainstream liberal media. They are all conservative, just varying in degrees.
First, I don’t think Lessig is bringing forward the case that the other TV outlets are perfect, he’s only making the case that Fox News is pro-conservative, which, if you bother reading his article, has been as much as admited by Fox News itself. Second, the DMCA and all the anti-free-culture things are no monopoly of the RP or the DP. Third, the kind of electoral system in the US, more than any media bias, is guilty of the two-party mindset: proof: the UK vs continental Europe.
Could someone who’s familiar with the “big picture” tell me what the “end game” is?
Once the FTC strips Fox of their slogan, will that be it? Or, are the moderates of MoveOn trying to force Fox to truly be “fair and balanced” like the other networks, the NYT, the LAT, etc. etc.?
And, will there be purges?
And, why does MoveOn in their complaint letter complain about Fox not having “progressive” guests? Shouldn’t they have said, “liberal?” Or, are they admitting they’re watermelons?
This just in from Federal Trade Commission Chairman Timothy J. Muris: ” I am not aware of any instance in which the Federal Trade Commission has investigated the slogan of a news organization. There is no way to evaluate this petition without evaluating the content of the news at issue. That is a task the First Amendment leaves to the American people, not a government agency.
Definitions from Merriam-Webster Online:
Liberal…”5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms”
Liberalism:…”a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties”
Conservative…”tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions”
Conservatism…”a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change”
Since I think we can all agree that a conservative is not a liberal, that would imply that conservatives do not “[believe] in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, [or] the autonomy of the individual and [do not stand] for the protection of political and civil liberties”.
Hmm, which group would I rather belong to?
I want to belong to the winning group.
Rob, you’re reasoning amounts to saying a = –a. Find a post-graduate mathematician or a philosophy student who’s taken elementary logic to fully explain the error of your supposition.
I’ll try, briefly…
Part of my value system as a Republican is that I believe murder is wrong. You disagree with my political views. Therefore, you must believe murder is right.
-kd
It is true that traditionally modern conservatism has leaned toward individualism and individual rights. I think a lot of the complaints against the Bush White House has been the way it has veered away from this view of conservatism and lurched toward taking away rights. Oh, all for a plausible purpose, naturally, but there you are. That’s why even some traditional conservatives who believe in state’s rights and smaller government are against the Bush team for building up federal power and increasing the role of government in American’s lives. It’s a strange world.
I have to agree with Mike on his earlier comment. I don’t think Lessig is a hypocrite, but I think this preoccupation with Fox is a great waste of energy. All it does is pit his identity and work against people that have chosen to watch Fox. For what gain? All you have to do is state you who are, forget about what you are not.
Given a choice of sources, most people choose ones that tell them what they want to hear — and then they convince themselves that their news is fair and balanced (or doesn’t need to be).
For a lighter take on the mottoes and slogans used by the news media, see Frivolous and Bollixed.