A note on MSNBC. Largely due to Olbermann, MSNBC now appears on Fox News supporters' "du jour" list of the "Mother of all Great Satans" of the liberal media. Perhaps for good reason. In recent years, MSNBC has become more persistent in its Fox-bashing as well as more strident -- perhaps in some ways, more Fox-like -- in the clarity with which it expresses the progressive viewpoint. Without a doubt this has occurred, in part, to address the need for a filter through which the partisan extremes of Fox's news coverage can be sifted. After all, CNN -- perhaps out of professional courtesy -- certainly doesn't allot very much air-time challenging Fox distortions.
Still, I find it doubtful that in this case, MSNBC's constant Fox bashing is the symbol of a network that is indifferent about professional courtesy among peers. It's clear that MSNBC has decided that it can no longer recognize as a peer, a network so lacking in journalistic integrity as the Fox News Channel.
"Firing Line" or the "700 Club?"
This is certainly the belief within the Obama Administration which in late October followed up on Dunn's initial charges by flatly stating that if Fox insists on being recognized as a news organization, then it also needs to be acknowledged that Fox is a news organization with a "perspective" thus setting it apart from the mainstream media.
That is a valid point. In terms of style, Fox's political opinion shows like Beck's, along with The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity, too often engage in the kind of low-brow, noisy theatrics reminiscent of the old Morton Downey, Jr. shows (I'm sure that Jeremy Glick can attest to that). Very rarely do Fox's opinion shows exhibit any elements of the learned, smoothly intellectual political repartee heard, for example, during the days of conservative William F. Buckley's Firing Line broadcasts.
As for its hard news -- in terms of flavor -- Fox News' content seems to have more in common with news segments broadcast on Pat Robertson's 700 Club than with Walter Cronkite or Eric Sevareid. Similar to its opinion shows, the network utilizes a vivid, tabloid approach in the presentation of its hard news content -- which is basically a mash-up of pop culture sensationalism, anti-terror hysteria, religious rabble-rousing and hyper-patriotic nationalism. It's a format that brings to mind the kind of "reporting" found in tabloid publications available along supermarket check out isles.
Purists may find this approach appalling, but it's the type of presentation that Fox News' viewers obviously enjoy. The fact that the network also carries the burden of a well-documented history of distortion and flat-out lying isn't a simple reality that Fox News viewers find unacceptable; it's a reality most refuse to admit even exists.
Clearly, the Fox News Channel is not the type of news outfit that would earn the admiration of the likes of an Edward R. Murrow. But, if you are a Fox News disciple, you don't give a hay about an Edward R. Murrow or even Cronkite or Sevareid. What could they possibly know about "fair and balanced" journalism?
That attitude is why Fox News supporters' outright rejection of the charges that the network is a publicity arm of the Republican Party is unsurprising. They defend the network's right to make full use of the editorial latitude available to opinion shows like Hannity, or Huckabee. They also maintain that the network's on-air hard news staff -- most notably Britt Hume, Major Garrett and Christopher Wallace " is comprised of objective professionals who draw the line on subtle editorializing and simply stick to the facts.
Even were this true, it remains quite difficult to begrudge Obama for insisting that during his interviews with Fox, that he also receives the same soft-ball questioning and deferential indulgence the network lays on Bush, Dick Chaney and other Republican Party officials. If this is a fact to which Obama can legitimately lay claim, it obviously means that -- regardless of Fox News' supporters' contention that the network's hard news content is produced by "sticking to the facts" -- it continues to have a credibility problem.
But the Administration's charge deserves consideration even if only on the basis of the network's peculiar habit of misrepresenting the party affiliations of Republicans involved in political scandals. If anything, the subconscious clarity of this particular Fox News Channel distortion represents the perfect metaphor in support of Dunn's charge.
It happened during the Mark Foley sex scandal when Fox News "mistakenly misidentified Foley, a Florida Republican, as a Democrat on at least two occasions. It was easy to spot the big fat "D, prominently positioned right next to Foley's name during the network's reporting of the story.
A repeat of this "error" occurred during the network's reportage of the Rhode Island congressional race between Lincoln Chafee and Sheldon Whitehouse when it identified the Democratic winner, Whitehouse, as a Republican and the GOP loser, Chafee, a Democrat. It happened again during investigations of Republican Ted Stevens of Alaska, who Fox News misidentified as a Democrat. Most recently it showed up during a segment on Republican Gov. Mark Sanford. This pattern of "mistakes " always occurring in one direction " is among the many reasons why Dunn's criticism of Fox News deserves consideration.
What, me worry?
I can recall an incident during Bush's first term when a Fox New personality became indignant over a question related to the journalistic objectivity of both he and his employer, in light of their shameful (from a journalistic standpoint) pro-America cheer leading. The question resulted in a testy response; something about how proud he is to wear his patriotism "on his sleeve.
This disconnect about the pitfalls of co-mingling flag-waving politics and broadcast journalism seems to be part of the mind-set of most past and present Fox News personalities. It is likely to remain a prerequisite for the future Fox News stars to come. That this Mad Magazine-esque "what, me worry?" level of estrangement from the concepts of quid-pro-quo and conflict-of-interest within a news organization seems of little matter to Fox News' most passionate supporters is quite disturbing and thus well worth pondering.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
