LA Times' Rosenberg bashes Fox

[redman]

Before you dismiss this as the ranting of a liberal newspaper's or liberal writer's anti-Fox rant, Rosenberg is actually right of center if anything. Most of his criticism comes from the left, and he's certainly not a friend of Hollywood despite being the TV and Media writer for the LA Times, which should Tell you something about him. Yomar and others on the board from LA-LA Land will back me up on this.

I respect his objectivity, and his willingness to criticize (and praise) in no uncertain terms if the target is (in his view) deserving:

TELEVISION / HOWARD ROSENBERG

Objectivity is lost to Fox News' barbs

By Howard Rosenberg

April 11 2003

"There's a see-ya-later-buddy quality to this."

— Brit Hume,

Fox News Channel anchor

on the collapse of Iraq's regime

TV pictures of Baghdad's fall included a U.S. soldier briefly draping an American flag over the head of a 40-foot statue of Saddam Hussein that was about to come down.

"No doubt, Al Jazeera and the others will make hay with that," "fair and balanced" Fox News Channel anchor David Asman said on Wednesday, expressing his disdain for the Qatar-based Arab satellite channel famous for its opinionated, non-Western news perspective.

When Fox reporter Simon Marks suggested from Amman, Jordan, that Arabs "on the street" may still regard Americans as invaders who manipulated these images, not as liberators, Asman snapped: "There is a certain ridiculousness to that point of view."

Whether he was right or wrong, the day's symbolism was historic on a level unrelated to politics or nationalism. When the statue of Hussein fell, an era of TV news appeared to topple with it.

There was a time, years ago, when even a network news anchor's raised eyebrow was correctly denounced as commentary. How quaint and musty that code of objectivity now seems as the war in Iraq winds down.

And viewers face Fox's swirling sands of spin.

Fox is not the only cable news channel that seamlessly stitches opinion to news. It happens regularly at CNN, the self-anointed "most trusted name in news," where prominent anchor Lou Dobbs is easily irked by opinions he doesn't share and is allowed to slap down interviewees who express them. And some of MSNBC's minions are not far behind.

Yet story slanting and bombast have soared stratospherically at Rupert Murdoch's 24-hour Fox channel under the guidance of former Republican political operative Roger Ailes since it was founded in 1996, ostensibly to combat bias in news. "Liberal" bias, that is.

Clearly, Fox is doing just fine in the eyes of many Americans, having passed older CNN in the ratings and made stars of some of its people.

A recent viewers poll by Murdoch-owned TV Guide found vamping, hyperventilating, tabloid-bred Shepard Smith, of all people, tied with ABC's Peter Jennings, just ahead of CBS' Dan Rather, for second place in network anchor credibility behind NBC's Tom Brokaw.

And that self-inflating gasbag Bill O'Reilly and his "O'Reilly Factor" are now something of a national institution. He is a real hoot, at times rising to exquisite self-parody, as when interviewing Princeton's Peter Singer, who equated the lives of slain Iraqi civilians with those of Americans fighting there.

"I believe you are on the wrong side of this politically and morally," O'Reilly lectured him, "but I'm going to give you the last word."

Then O'Reilly followed Singer's last word with his own: "You're doing a great disservice to your country, sir."

Where should journalists draw a line separating news from opinion? Throughout much of Fox, the question never arises.

Although its field reporters play it mostly down the middle -- and that's significant -- its New York anchor-interviewers are notorious for injecting their own views, nearly always conservative and supportive of the Bush administration. What's more, at times they press field reporters to agree.

Add to that an overwhelming dominance of right-of-center pundits and guests, and the result is pretty much a wall of conservative opinion.

Greta Van Susteren is generally fair and not jingoistic while anchoring her evening program. And Fox does use some liberal-stamped pundits as regulars. But they are nearly always relegated to the fringes of its programming schedule.

An exception is moderately left-of-center talk-radio host Alan Colmes, but he wears a bull's-eye on his chest. The hapless, sleepy, untelegenic Colmes is mowed down nightly by his forceful, articulate, camera-tailored, extreme-right counterpart, talk-radio star Sean Hannity, in their debates on "Hannity & Colmes." Plus, Fox often visits Hannity's radio studio to get his views on the day's news, something it doesn't do for Colmes.

In other words, Fox slants like a drunk who's guzzled a couple of six-packs. If only it did so honestly, calling itself the "conservative alternative" or something like that, instead of pretending to be what it's not by having its anchors deliver these relentless on-screen mantras: "We report, you decide" and "real journalism, fair and balanced." Fat chance.

Instead, a sample day this week found these Uncle Sams tenaciously bashing the French, the United Nations, Al Jazeera and those in the media, especially the New York Times, questioning the war in Iraq. At Fox, that equals treason.

"We report, you decide" on "Fox and Friends," an early-morning show whose three hosts tackle news with schmooze: "I want to know whether the New York Times is putting a picture of this on its cover," co-host Steve Doocy said about footage of Kurds celebrating the downfall of Hussein in northern Iraq. Meanwhile, co-host Brian Kilmeade wasn't buying "British intelligence" cited in London papers reporting that Hussein probably survived the recent U.S. air strike aimed at him. "So-called" British intelligence, he called it.

"We report, you decide" with Asman, a former editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal: "What do you think of these armchair critics from the New York Times?" he asked a guest, adding about "gloom and doom" stories: "Have these news organizations lost all credibility for analyzing military strategy?"

"We report, you decide" with anchor Neil Cavuto, who, like others at Fox, adopts White House and Pentagon war terminology -- "the coalition of the willing" -- to describe the U.S.-British-dominated war effort led by President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "What's to stop us from just telling the French and Germans, 'To hell with you?' " Cavuto asked his pro-war guest. And exhuming a favorite Fox target out of the blue, he asked: "Would you have been able to see this kind of closeness in war between Tony Blair and Clinton?"

"We report, you decide" with anchor John Gibson, wondering "what the French are gonna do to try to screw up" Iraq's coming post-Hussein period. As for the U.N. wanting a central role in postwar reconstruction, Gibson added: "Americans think it's an absolute joke that the U.N. is so presumptuous to think that it could run Iraq. The idea that we would turn it over to the U.N. to fumble seems incomprehensible." When a Gibson guest argued that many Arabs oppose long-term U.S. involvement in postwar Iraq, he cut him off.

"We report, you decide" with Smith on a U.S. tank killing two journalists and wounding many others when firing into Iraq's Palestine Hotel, where hundreds of foreign journalists were based: "I think it's now pretty clear ... that snipers were on that roof ... and by design, and in effect, journalists are being used as human shields," he said. That contradicted German freelance reporter Chris Jumpelt, who was working for Fox and on the line from Baghdad after being in the hotel when the blast came. The Pentagon claimed the tank was taking sniper fire from the hotel, something Jumpelt and other journalists disputed, but something Smith accepted. As if to undermine Jumpelt, Smith pointed out that the reporter was being "minded by Iraqis [who monitor] what he says." If true, then why ask Jumpelt about this in the first place?

As for those London press reports that Hussein likely survived the recent air strike, Smith didn't like those much either. "What do we know about this paper, the Guardian?" he asked about the famous daily. Later, he announced that it and another London paper, the highly regarded Independent, were "decidedly antiwar," implying that they slanted their news reporting.

He must have confused them with Fox, where objectivity is routinely dispatched like images of Saddam Hussein. See ya later, buddy.

[Kilmer17]

What a laugh.

Where should journalists draw a line separating news from opinion?

How about where a news show and an opinion show stop being one in the same. O'Reilly is clearly an opinion show.

OR

Fox often visits Hannity's radio studio to get his views on the day's news, something it doesn't do for Colmes.

Maybe because Colmes didnt have a radio show until a month ago and even then it starts at 10 PM. NOt exactly morning or afternoon drive time.

More LIberal BS from the new KING of Liberal Bias- The LA LA times.

[The Evil Genius]

In other words, Fox slants like a drunk who's guzzled a couple of six-packs. If only it did so honestly, calling itself the "conservative alternative" or something like that, instead of pretending to be what it's not by having its anchors deliver these relentless on-screen mantras: "We report, you decide" and "real journalism, fair and balanced." Fat chance.

Holy **** is that funny. :laugh:

[RiggoDrill]

I'm actually impressed that you posted this, Redman. Funny that there aren't very many comments.

[luckydevil]

I go agree that foxnews is clearly conservative, however O'Reilly is not a reporter rather he is a pundit. He doesnt pretend to be objective

[luckydevil]

Rd its only been 20 min since he posted this thread. I expect alot of responses

[redman]

Riggo,

Don't be so surprised. You and I tend to disagree on many macro issues, but it's not because I'm not trying to think and develop opinions, and it's not because I can't stand hearing other viewpoints. Frankly, opposing views, especially well-thought-out ones, challenge me and make me refine my views. Sometimes they outright change my mind.

I happen to respect Rosenberg and his work. While Kilmer's points are valid (I too consider O'Reilly - who I'm not a fan of BTW - to be a commentator and not a journalist), Rosenberg's other points, based upon quotes from Fox hosts, are not disputable.

I'm of course right of center, but I don't watch Fox exclusively. I tend to flip also to MSNBC and CNN. All have flaws, and in different areas. But I thought I'd offer this up as a critique of Fox from someone who's not liberal.

[codeorama]

redman, I appreciate that you posted this story.

The one line in the story that speakes volumes to me is:

In other words, Fox slants like a drunk who's guzzled a couple of six-packs. If only it did so honestly, calling itself the "conservative alternative" or something like that, instead of pretending to be what it's not by having its anchors deliver these relentless on-screen mantras: "We report, you decide" and "real journalism, fair and balanced." Fat chance.

I would have no problem what so ever with Fox if they did label themselves "conservative alternative" or something similar that is truthful. It doesn't bother me in the least that someone feels the need to get the conservative viewpoint across, that's only fair considering CNN is slanted so liberally. But I don't care for the fact that Fox tries to come off as independant or down the middle, because that is dishonest to me. They are advertising that they are fair and they have no spin and so on, that's false advertising.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by luckydevi

I go agree that foxnews is clearly conservative, however O'Reilly is not a reporter rather he is a pundit. He doesnt pretend to be objective

I have only watched O'Reilly twice, but I would disagree that he doesn't pretend to be objective.. His show is called the "No Spin Zone". Both shows that I saw fell into the mold that the author of this story tells. O'Reilly claims that he is an independant when he was a card carrying republican until the Washington post ran a story busting him. His mom busted him in that story for lying about where he grew up and how well off his family was... He is far from objective and even less truthful.

[stratoman]

FNC is #1 because the majority of clear thinking Americans feel that they report the news and provide better analysis then others. FNC reports the news with Americans in mind, not Europe, not Aisa, or the Middle East.

Oreilly #1 primetime news analysis His book "No Spinzone" #1 on NY times best sellers list.

Hannity's radio show is the fastest growing talkshow in history.

Why? because this is what most of America wants.

[Art]

I tend to watch a little of MSNBC and a lot of CNN and Fox. I agree with the statement here that the writer of this piece, who is an opinion writer, really ought to know the difference between an opinion television show and a straight news show. He's correct that Gibson, as an example, is doing what is largely a reporting show, but he comes very hard with the rhetoric.

What I'm disturbed by, however, is repeated mentions about Fox's decision to question the questions about the war as a sign of bias. There was so much carping about the war from almost every news outlet from television to radio to print. Each of us saw the commentary about a failing war plan. Kurp here called for Rumsfeld's head a couple of hours before those types of stories started hitting the news.

Fox, meanwhile, simply pointed out that in a week we were 250 miles in with almost no casualties. The sheer audacity, it seems, to mention that a major sand storm may have slowed the advance more than all the Iraqis put together shouldn't be considered a sign of bias.

Fox's biggest strength coming out of this war is that it continually questioned the questions. That, to me, is what Fox refers to when it speaks about fair and balanced coverage. When it mentions that it reports and you decide, what it's saying is IT IS reporting on what the media is telling you. It is showing you a different story based on the same premise. And the people get to decide. Thusfar they've decided that Fox is the best place to go.

When Fox asks whether news organizations who were promoting questions based on unnamed sources placed on equal footing with Joint Chiefs chairmen, there should be immense credit for that and that, more than anything the last three weeks, is where Fox has blown the doors off the competition in all fields of media. The reason you see this type of article going at Fox is because Fox openly takes on the media. It openly wonders how some of the questions can be asked and it does so by pointing out various aspects of the story that may matter. Like, a sand storm some 250 miles in country.

While the news organizations were asking questions about the war and offering halting, questioning positions, Fox was asking, ""Have these news organizations lost all credibility for analyzing military strategy?"

As it turns out, Fox was right. People in the world really don't, I don't imagine, take "Fair and balanced" to mean what this author suggests. I take fair and balanced to mean that while the world of media is reporting one thing, Fox is reporting from the other side of it. It's the same story. Told from a different point of view, mentioning both.

When Fox was boosting our success early in the war, the rest of the media was focused on setbacks that proved largely fictional in nature. If that's bias of the sort we should be disappointed in from our media, then I'm happy to be disappointed, because watching the coverage of CNN and reading some papers in the country there was a point in this war in which you'd actually have believed the Iraqis were surrounding Washington.

That's why Fox has grown viewership of late. Until the other networks figure out that six days into a campaign is not the time to be asking whether we were led to believe there would be no fighting at all -- as if that is a reflection of the success we were having -- they are in trouble with Fox, especially in an era where there are LIVE shots from reporters in the field that directly contradict the gloom and doom reported.

As an example, I was watching Fox late one night. We'd just taken the airport. It was light and Sky News was interviewing a commander. There were guys sleeping. No sounds of fighting. The commander was just smiling openly. It was as relaxed as I'd ever have imagined a situation like that to be.

I then turned on CNN and they were running the headline, "Airoprt battle rages." This contradicts reality because that wasn't happening. It may have raged. It may rage again. It wasn't then, and that was their story box and CNN.com lead headline.

Before the war when Blair received a winning margin of 430 something to 130 something in support of his position, Fox actually reported the huge margin and win. CNN displayed the story as a massive embarrassment and political defeat. When Fox reported, I decided which was the actual story and which wasn't. When Fox fairly balanced slanted coverage, I recognized it.

I, along with the whole of society, knows that Fox IS a conservative network, mild protestations from Fox aside. It's just hard to find much flaw with them for calling the coalition we have one of the willing when CNN runs stories about our lack of international support. Both are the same story. I appreciate having the other side of it voiced.

I do get a little tired of the repetition on Fox though and they've blown some big stories by being far too quick to pull the trigger on them. But, to be honest, when I look for breaking news and reporting stories first, I don't really look to Fox yet. CNN still rules the roost there on the television side. Fox has a long way to go to catch them on at least that aspect.

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by redman

Riggo,

Don't be so surprised. You and I tend to disagree on many macro issues, but it's not because I'm not trying to think and develop opinions, and it's not because I can't stand hearing other viewpoints. Frankly, opposing views, especially well-thought-out ones, challenge me and make me refine my views. Sometimes they outright change my mind.

I happen to respect Rosenberg and his work. While Kilmer's points are valid (I too consider O'Reilly - who I'm not a fan of BTW - to be a commentator and not a journalist), Rosenberg's other points, based upon quotes from Fox hosts, are not disputable.

I'm of course right of center, but I don't watch Fox exclusively. I tend to flip also to MSNBC and CNN. All have flaws, and in different areas. But I thought I'd offer this up as a critique of Fox from someone who's not liberal.

Redman,

Having read your posts for over a year, I know that you do seek truth over ideology. You're opinionated, but not adversarial -- something I can't say about myself :laugh:

I'm impressed that you took the time to post something which questions a "sacred cow" of the right, namely that Fox News is the most truthful and balanced news source.

I actually have no opinion on Fox News, as I don't have cable, and don't watch TV unless it's football. :laugh:

At the same time I can't imagine any other consistently-and adamantly-right-of-center person on this board posting this article. Your post to me showed courage and independence of thought -- something the world needs more of, in my diabolical left-of-center view. :laugh:

[Tarhog]

I've never really understood all the uproar over Fox News. While I think RD and Code are absolutely correct that Fox is neither middle of the road or 'balanced' (in terms of giving equal air time to conservative and liberal viewpoints), neither does CNN acknowledge its leftward slant. I think that most of the folks on Fox (such as the hosts of Fox and Friends for example) readily acknowledge their political leaning and stance on issue, such as the war. Bill O'Reilly (who I don't personally have much regard for) is not the entire Fox network. Yes he claims to be an independent, but is clearly quite right of center (although to be fair, he can be a pain in the rear end occasionally directing his barbs at the right as well). But others (even the hated Hannity) wear their political leanings on their sleeves, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Its certainly more refreshing than those of the Peter Jennings and Dan Rather ilk who haplessly pretend to be objective when they are clearly not. I don't expect a human being to be objective, so I'm not faulting those folks for having personal political leanings, I'd just have more respect for them if they came clean and acknowledged it. I think there is a significant amount of hostility directed at Fox News by the other media outlets firstly because their success threatens them, and secondly because they've violated a long-standing rule for media outlets, they've given up the mask of objectivity. I have no problem with Fox (as an AMERICAN news organization) supporting the war. Not just 'the troops' which is a total cop-out, but the WAR. CNN and MSNBC are no more 'objective' or 'unbiased' than is Fox. They just refuse to acknowledge their own network position. I also think that the assumption that every American right of center mindlessly watches nothing but Sean Hannity and Bill OReilly is arrogant and reeks of condescension. Most I believe watch multiple media sources and are able to discern what is genuine and honest and what is propaganda, whether its generated by Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or Al Jazeera.

[fansince62]

truth in reporting seems to be a topic very much in play recently. mr rosenberg seems to have set his aim rather low. I, for one, would prefer that he also question the objectivity of, oh I don't know, bastions of truth like the NY Times, The WP, CNN, "unbiased" Harvard Law professors, Hollywood conspiracy provocateurs....and on....and on.......all of these information sources and all of these reporters at one time or another have applied some "interpretive judgment" to the news. I would go even further and assert that I believe that, surely from the right, but pervasively from the left, these people often fabricate or knowingly misreport events and facts. I have seen too many outright falsehoods in areas I am personally and intimately familiar with not to believe otherwise. we are living in very contentious times with a lot at stake. the only way to be certain is to personally engage - and most are not willing to do that.

[stratoman]

face the facts... the majority of the American people favor the way FNC is reporting the war over other news services. If most Americans don't like Oreilly or Hannity then why is "the factor" the #1 show of it's kind(least we forget that his book is #1 on the NY Times best sellers list) and why is Hannity's radio show the fasted growing in talkshow history? Why are there so many more conservative talk shows on the radio then liberial? Is it maybe because this is what appeals to the majority of the American public? :?:

[codeorama]

Tarhog,

You have to excuse me, sometimes I go off on Fox and fail to mention that CNN bugs me too. I would never claim that CNN is more accurate or more "fair". I don't really watch CNN unless I'm just scanning a "breaking news" story, I pretty much stick with MSNBC, but I always browse the other's too.

[Tarhog]

I usually flip between the 3. I probably spend most of my time on MSNBC and FOX, can't stomach CNN for long, partly because they rely so much on foreign correspondents and they almost always take the most negative tack on storylines.

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by fansince62

truth in reporting seems to be a topic very much in play recently. mr rosenberg seems to have set his aim rather low. I, for one, would prefer that he also question the objectivity of, oh I don't know, bastions of truth like the NY Times, The WP, CNN, "unbiased" Harvard Law professors, Hollywood conspiracy provocateurs....and on....and on.......

Bingo, Al.

Rosenberg's just another loud-mouthed idiot TV critic. When I was at 'SC and had some time to kill between classes or something, I'd scan his column in The L.A. Times. It was nothing special. And neither is he.

I mean, heck, the guy's a Chiefs fan, for goodness sake!

[rtandler]

It's really very simple. The mainstream media had gone so far left that Fox News' middle of the road reporting--yes, fair and balanced--is deemed right wing. It's the same paradigm that led to mainstream conservative Rush Limbaugh being labeled a reactionary nut.

[Nerm]

I would say that Fox leans right, MSNBC is in the center, and CNN leans left.

I think of it this way - if a welfare program is cut, CNN would show a story of some single mother who cant afford her childs medication. Fox would show a story with some lifetime welfare recipient who was booted off the program, got a job and now believes in her ability to make her dreams come true. I don't know what MSNBC would show.

[phishhead]

MSNBC would show both stories, and let you decide.

Well.. wait a second... Thats crazy of me to think a news network might show both sides... You know what.. MSNBC would do whatever they thought was better for ratings.

[yank]

Originally posted by rtandler

It's really very simple. The mainstream media had gone so far left that Fox News' middle of the road reporting--yes, fair and balanced--is deemed right wing. It's the same paradigm that led to mainstream conservative Rush Limbaugh being labeled a reactionary nut.

Rich you've hit the mother lode. The "mainstream" media, including CNN (Communist News Network) is patently leftist, socialist, anti-American, anti-Republican (no inherent relation BTW), and pro-Democrat party.

This is not conjecture or hyperbole. Just the facts ma'am. The percentage of Democrats (i.e., not the FNC wheelhouse) in the "mainstream" television media is consistently measured at over 90%.

This is by no means an accident. The poor kids who want to go into journalism (and Democratic politics - the same BTW) are taught that the keys to success historically (see Woodward and Bernstein) are to develop new outrageous ways to slam the American institutions that provide the freedom of speech, economic engines, and moral compassion to the rest of the world that is anathema to the reality of the Democrat, socialist movement (really facist - see political correctness and antiwar movement).

The 90% Democrat party figure rises DRASTICLY when assaying the journalism, English and political science professors on today's college campuses (see Why the Left Hates Us - Daniel J. Flynn). The examples of 1960's criminals, especially cop-killers, who have teaching and even department leadership positions in these media-important university disciplines should cause a lump in every "fair and balanced" person's throat, especially those with college aged kids.

The leftist-trained Democrat party (which is socialist, union-based) plays to these leftist-trained media types - the Brokaws, Rathers, Jennings (dont get me started on the socialistic Canadians).

The media in turn plays to the socialist institutions like the UN that proffer Libya as the human rights coordinator and the Hussein regime as the WMD coordinator and France, Germany and Russia as the protectors/beneficiaries (with the perfunctory disclaimers) of the latest example of Hitler/Stalin/Mao-ist butchers.

The media obsessed leftist ideologues - Sean Penn, John Kerry (just because he was in the military once doesnt mean he isnt), Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, et al - equate the Sadaam Husseim "regime" with the Bush administration - simply and only because it is Republican.

When Bill Clinton said the EXACT same thing as Bush about Sadam Hussein in the late 90's to justify his ineffectual symbolic missile attack on Iraq to disguise the Lewinski thing - the "mainstream" media reported it with gusto - but no Wag the Dog there... No Sadaam/Clinton regime equation ... coincidence ? - I think not.

Back to Rich's point - anything to the right of the "mainstream" media - even if fact-based is derided as not "fair and balanced". With the training instutions of the leftist media it should not surprise.

But "mainstream" is the wrong term. It currently consists of the "broadcast" channels and some self-selected newspapers like the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and CNN, et al. But the FNC, a CABLE channel, surpassed CBS this week in the early morning ratings - an historic landmark. "Mainstream" as a moniker should be reserved for that that reflects the populous - which FNC demonstrably does.

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by phishhead

MSNBC would do whatever they thought was better for ratings.

Bingo! :laugh:

[codeorama]

You guys that believe that Fox is down the center because the country is so far to the left are crazy. If the country is so far to the left, why is there a Republican president, republican congress, if what you were saying was true, the Democrats would control everything. The country is pretty much down the middle in terms of left/right. There's probably 40% who will vote Dem no matter what and 40% that will vote GOP no matter what... that leaves 20% of us (me included that have voted for dems or gop) that will vote either way and are usually the ones that decide the elections.

Fox is slanted to the right. If you can't see that, you are even farther to the right so that Fox is left of you.

[rtandler]

"Mainstream" as a moniker should be reserved for that that reflects the populous - which FNC demonstrably does.

Good point, Yank. There was no "mainstream" media, save for the occasional exception like the Washington Times, until recently.

It looks like MCNBC is starting to get it. They dumped Donahue and, unlike CNN, they seemed highly skeptical of reports by the Iraqui "Information" Minister and the Arab TV broadcasts. They pay tribute to our soldiers with their "America's Bravest" wall and with their "Let Freedom Ring" bump pieces.

CNN still sticks with the same mentality that disallowed its "reporters" from called men who drove airplaines into buildings "terrorists". Do you even have to wonder why the stock of its parent company is in the toilet? (certainly, other factors are in play there as well)