Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Posted on 07/17/2006 9:29:37 AM PDT by weegee
'Ombuddy' talk: Is FoxNews 'ultra' or just 'conservative'?
An interesting discussion broke out among my "ombuddies" yesterday. It stemmed from this inquiry from Renaud Gilbert, ombudsman at Maison de Radio Canada.
Renaud wrote:
We have a reporter who labeled FoxNews as "an ultra-conservative network" in a news bulletin. I had complaints from some people that strongly opposed the use of the word "ULTRA," saying it is a value judgment and not a judgment of fact, and that it has no place in a news bulletin unless it is attributed. Any comments?
The ombuddies, including yours truly, almost unanimously agreed with the complaint saying that "ultra" should not have been used and that it was an unattributed value judgment in describing FoxNews. Here' s a sampling of some of the comments:
I think the complainers have a good point. Ultra is a value judgment. Certainly, Fox is a conservative network, but I am not sure that "ultra" adds much to the label especially in an environment where even the conservatives are beginning to argue about their core beliefs.
Connie Coyne
he Salt Lake Tribune
Ultra is a loaded judgment. FNC's conservative, but "ultra" suggests "extremist," and that seems like a highly questonable label.
David House, reader advocate
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Adding a twist to the discussion was Sharon Burnside, public editor at the Toronto Star, who asked:
I would like to know if our American colleagues would acknowledge there is a spectrum of conservative views, and if so, where would they place FoxNews on that spectrum?
The always thoughtful Manning Pynn, public editor at The Orlando Sentinel, raised the bar with this comment:
As others have suggested, I think "ultra" is a problem, but I'm not sure that "conservative" isn't, too - for a couple of reasons. Both terms, it seems to me, are value judgments on the part of the reporter, unless the person or entity being described has identified himself/herself/itself as such. Then, though, there is the question of what is "conservative" and "liberal". The former used to include small, pay-as-you-go, debt-free government -- and, to the extent it came up, probably not invading states that had not attacked the United States. So, is someone "conservative" or "liberal" merely because he/she/it says so -- and whose is it to make that determination?
The academics then weighed in on the topic. Ed Wasserman, Knight Professor in Journalism Ethics at Washington and Lee University and an associate member of ONO wrote:
Manning has a good point. Perhaps what the reporter is trying to convey has more to do with political alignment than political philosophy. I think, accordingly, it would be accurate to say that FNC's commentary and news have been generally supportive of administration policy. Certainly, if you were a foreign correspondent trying to contextualize for your readers something Fox did -- say, breaking a story embarrassing to the White House -- you would be OK pointing out that FNC has been generally pro-administration. I think that characterization has the advantage of being true and of avoiding the enormous imprecision, as Manning notes, of deciding what's conservative, let alone ultra-convervative (which feels like a pejorative, and to some people could include racial supremacists, tax resisters, etc. etc.)
Finally, this point:
One of Manning's points is that the meaning of "conservative" and "liberal" is now so confused as to be unintelligible. I find both terms useless, until we can identify the defining characteristics of conservatives and liberals. I have talked with highly intelligent friends who use both terms and have asked them to give me definitions. All they have to offer is a list of things each supports/opposes. That is not helpful. Until we can state clearly what we mean by "conservative" or "liberal," I suggest that we bury the terms.
Dr. Louis W. Hodges Knight Professor of Ethics in Journalism, Emeritus Washington and Lee University
What say y'all...
Fox is minimally conservative.
They know what the terms mean, they just don't like the fact that they lost the war of words so they want to eliminate the words and start over. That's why you now hear "progressive" instead of "liberal." Tossing out Conservative along with Liberal is a liberal idea since I've not heard of Conservatives complaining about what they're called -- they only complain when the labels are one-sided.
-PJ
"Fox isn't even conservative, it just appears that way because all the other "news" channels are rabid Left."
Bump to that. The closest thing there is to a conservative news program on TV is 700 Club, and that news is interspersed with Pat Robertson praying to the point of being unwatchable. If there actually WERE a conservative nightly news, I bet it'd beat Fox, which is actually pretty left in news reporting and agenda, though far more right than the MSM in analysis of that reporting (which is to say, there are actual right wingers there doing the analysis).
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.