As research for my musing, I'm a regular watcher of news programs: NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. A few Sundays ago I caught David Axelrod, Senior White House Advisor, telling George Stephanopoulos of ABC's This Week, that Fox News is not really a news organization because they have a "perspective". Mr. Axelrod said that the White House doesn't recognize Fox as a legitimate news organization, and he didn't think that reputable organizations should recognize Fox either.
What?
I agree that Fox, for the most part, has a conservative bent, and I would go as far as to say that a couple of their stars are more interested in bashing Obama than preserving conservatism. However, they also have news anchor, Shepard Smith and congressional correspondent, Major Garret, both of whom appear to be professional and unbiased.
Is it news agencies having a perspective that the White House has a problem with? Or, is it only a problem when the perspective is different than President Obama's?
Chris Wallace, Fox News' Sunday morning anchor, appears to be right of center, but certainly no more so than MSNBC's Chris Matthews is left of center. Why then, would the White House refuse to give Mr. Wallace a place in the line-up of a round-robin set of interviews that Mr. Obama did for Sunday morning news shows while Mr. Matthews was included.
Fox News is certainly not the only news agency to have an opinion. I would contend that Fox and MSNBC are running neck-in-neck in their efforts to please their niche audiences.
Sean Hannity of Fox News goes after Mr. Obama to the point of ludicrous--MSNBC's Keith Olbermann goes after Fox News to the point of ridiculous. Mr. Hannity's questions to his guest are generally rhetorical, and Mr. Olbermann's commentary is often delivered in a mocking voice that is derisive of his subject (and the subject is more often than not, a Fox News personality). Both shows are meant to appeal to an emotional audience--not an audience looking for real, unbiased information.
Glen Beck at Fox is hugely entertaining, albeit a bit hysterical in his efforts. He is criticized for playing loosely with his facts: stating recently that Major Garret had not been called on at a White House press conference when in fact, he had. Mr. Beck's critics, however, are even more miffed when he's right. Acorn, the nation's largest community organizer of low- and moderate-income families was recently denied funding by the Senate after Mr. Beck exposed Acorn workers in several cities giving advice on how to set-up brothels to avoid taxes. No other news agencies seemed interested in the story and the New York Times later admitted that they had been negligent in not covering the story. Mr. Beck also broke the Van Jones story. Mr. Jones, President Obama's Green Czar, is an admitted communist, and after 9/11 suggested that high-level Bush officials might have deliberately allowed the September 11 attacks to occur. Mr. Jones resigned his post amid the controversy.
Bill O'Reilly of Fox News touts his program as fair and balanced and I believe that he makes an effort to be just that. Nevertheless, his conservative social views seep through. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does put him at odds with White House views occasionally.
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow is a bright and astute interviewer. I was surprised when one of her lead stories last week was an interview with a woman who had organized a motivational seminar with George W. Bush as key speaker, along with Colin Powell, Rudy Giullani, Zig Ziglar and others. It wasn't quite clear what she was going after: Deriding Bush for speaking at a motivational seminar? Proving that the seminars were right-wing Christian events? With two wars, unemployment nearing 10%, housing foreclosures reaching record highs and the health-care debate, all-important topics, I found myself wondering why MSNBC was interested in George Bush speaking at a motivational seminar?
I prefer to listen to good debate, replete with facts and figures and delivered with passion, not calumny. However, while belligerent debate choked on sarcasm is not pleasant, I'll take it over censorship any day.
Has the White House maligned and marginalized Fox News?
Recently, the New York Times, reported: "Fox's television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Tuesday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews".
Competitive news organizations don't mind the White House censuring Fox News, but when it comes to censoring news--well, that's another story.
Who wins and who loses in the battle between the White House and Fox News?
Free Speech won when the other news organizations refused to be complicit in the censorship of Fox. The White House lost for trying to "control" the news. And, the grand-champion in the battle: Fox News--their ratings are through the roof.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment