Posted on 04/16/2003 6:11:48 AM PDT by MEGoody
Cable's War Coverage Suggests a New 'Fox Effect' on Television By JIM RUTENBERG
The two commentators were gleeful as they skewered the news media and antiwar protesters in Hollywood.
"They are absolutely committing sedition, or treason," one commentator, Michael Savage, said of the protesters one recent night.
His colleague, Joe Scarborough, responded: "These leftist stooges for anti-American causes are always given a free pass. Isn't it time to make them stand up and be counted for their views?"
The conversation did not take place on A.M. radio, in an Internet chat room or even on the Fox News Channel. Rather, Mr. Savage, a longtime radio talk-show host, and Mr. Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, were speaking during prime time on MSNBC, the cable news network owned by Microsoft and General Electric and overseen by G.E.'s NBC News division.
MSNBC, which is ranked third among cable news channels, hired the two shortly before the war in Iraq, saying it sought better political balance in its programming. But others in the industry say the moves are the most visible sign of a phenomenon they call "the Fox effect."
This was supposed to be CNN's war, a chance for the network, which is owned by AOL Time Warner, to reassert its ratings lead using its international perspective and straightforward approach.
Instead, it has been the Fox News Channel, owned by the News Corporation, that has emerged as the most-watched source of cable news by far, with anchors and commentators who skewer the mainstream media, disparage the French and flay anybody else who questions President Bush's war effort.
Fox's formula had already proved there were huge ratings in opinionated news with an America-first flair. But with 46 of the top 50 cable shows last week alone, Fox has brought prominence to a new sort of TV journalism that casts aside traditional notions of objectivity, holds contempt for dissent and eschews the skepticism of government at mainstream journalism's core.
News executives at other networks are keeping a wary eye on Fox News, trying to figure out what, if anything, its progress will mean to them.
"I certainly think that all news people are watching the success of Fox," said Andrew Heyward, president of CBS News. "There is a long-standing tradition in the mainstream press of middle-of-the-road journalism that is objective and fair. I would hate to see that fall victim to a panic about the Fox effect."
The American news media have been here before. Newspaper headlines in World War II clearly backed the Allies. In 1944, The New York Times used the following headline above a photo essay about an air raid: "We Strike at the Japs."
But until Fox News, television news had rarely taken that sort of tone, though opinion has broken through at times. The major networks were first considered bullish on the Vietnam conflict. Then Walter Cronkite editorialized against it.
Still, for all the claims of disinterest from network anchors and correspondents, conservatives believed that they were masking liberal bias.
Rupert Murdoch played off that suspicion when he started the Fox News Channel in 1996, declaring it would take both sides of the political spectrum into account while overtaking CNN. Fox kept most of its political commentary to its prime-time schedule, which it called the equivalent of a newspaper's opinion page.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, though, Fox News Channel covered the fighting in Afghanistan with heavy patriotism, referring to "our troops" who were fighting "terror goons." Fox jumped to first in the cable news ratings in January 2002.
The channel has now taken its brand of pro-American journalism to a new level. One recent night, a correspondent in Iraq referred to war protesters as "the great unwashed."
After the first statue of Saddam Hussein fell in Baghdad, Neal Cavuto, an anchor, delivered a message to those "who opposed the liberation of Iraq": "You were sickening then, you are sickening now." Another Fox anchor, John Gibson, said he hoped Iraq's reconstruction would not be left to "the dopey old U.N."
CNN's ratings also rose during the war, to 2.65 million average daily viewers, from 610,000, but CNN trailed Fox, which had 3.3 million. Though MSNBC remained in third place with 1.4 million, it saw its share of the cable news audience grow, and for the first time in years had a sense of momentum.
Fox News executives would not comment for this article, beyond contending that their channel's success had more to do with its reporting than its editorial approach. They noted, for instance, that Fox showed the first live reports from the push to central Baghdad and from Mr. Hussein's palace there.
Fox's success initially seemed to push CNN to reconsider its editorial direction. In 2001, the network's former chairman, Walter Isaacson, made a public show of meeting with Republican leaders in Washington to discuss CNN's perceived liberal bias. Like Fox News and MSNBC, CNN featured an American flag on its screen after Sept. 11.
Since CNN's new chief, Jim Walton, took over last winter the network has reaffirmed its role as an international news network. It is the only one of the three cable-news networks without a flag on its screen now.
MSNBC, on the other hand, has added several features to capture more conservatives, who, along with moderates, make up a larger share of the cable news audience than do liberals, according to analysts.
MSNBC has patriotic flourishes throughout the day. Along with the regular screen presence of an American flag, Mr. Bush's portrait is featured on MSNBC's main set and an "America's Bravest" studio wall shows snapshots of men and women serving in Iraq.
Neal Shapiro, the NBC News president, said MSNBC hired Mr. Scarborough and Mr. Savage to add political equilibrium to its lineup of hosts. Before the war, Mr. Shapiro said, all of them — Chris Matthews, Phil Donahue, Bill Press and Pat Buchanan — opposed the war. Mr. Donahue's program was canceled in February.
"If you have a range of opinion that leaves out a whole part of the country," Mr. Shapiro said, "you're unintentionally sending a message that `you are not welcome here.' "
Erik Sorenson, MSNBC's president, said it was trying to differentiate its report from what he called a mainstream style of automatic questioning of the government.
"After Sept. 11 the country wants more optimism and benefit of the doubt," Mr. Sorenson said. "It's about being positive as opposed to being negative. If it ends up negative, so be it. But a big criticism of the mainstream press is that the beginning point is negative: `On Day 2, we're in a quagmire.' "
MSNBC's programming moves were welcomed by L. Brent Bozell III, founder of the Media Research Center, a conservative media analysis group. "What Fox is doing, and frankly what MSNBC is also declaring by its product, is that one can be unabashedly patriotic and be a good news journalist at the same time," Mr. Bozell said.
Still, MSNBC's moves have news executives and some liberal critics worried that Fox's success will push TV news too far from a neutral tone.
"I'm a huge believer in the forces of the market and the audience's ability to make choices among various channels," Mr. Heyward of CBS said. "What I would not like to see happen is legitimate debate stifled, or journalists' skepticism, heated journalistic inquiry, somehow dampened by a flock of Fox imitators."
What a load. This clueless snot would have been right if he had said "the skepticism of Republicans in government". The Left Stream reporters and editors ALWAYS take Democrats at their word -- even proven, repeat liars.
Why can't these morons understand just how biased they have become? Oh, well. More bucks for Fox.
The major news media outlets have not bee objective in years (if ever). They have a point of view, and they do everything in their power to see that their view is present favorably, and the other side is either shut out, or present as unfavorably as possible.
The problem they face now is two fold, one is the Inter-net, like minded people have discovered that there are other like minded people out there, and the Inter-net provides a way to communicate and organize, something that was difficult when the big 3 controlled the airways.
Two, Fox news is showing that there is a market for something other than the socialist news the big networks promote. I don't think Fox is all that conservative, but at least they are not into force feeding us socialism.
I don't care if the big three want to be the voice of the Democratic Party, what does upset me is the fact that they pretend to be objective, and they are not.
They know this, and now it is becoming clear to the American people where their true loyalities lie.
"I certainly think that all news people are watching the success of Fox," said Andrew Heyward, president of CBS News. "There is a long-standing tradition in the mainstream press of middle-of-the-road journalism that is objective and fair. I would hate to see that fall victim to a panic about the Fox effect."The American news media have been here before. Newspaper headlines in World War II clearly backed the Allies. In 1944, The New York Times used the following headline above a photo essay about an air raid: "We Strike at the Japs."
No, they are scared to death that it might push TV news to the right to a neutral tone! If that happens, then the RATS lose their power they were supposed to gain from Campaign Finance Reform!
And people wonder why the public tunes in to FNC?
O'Reilly will absolutely kill Paula Zahn in the ratings, just as he always does. That's because O'Reilly is a compelling personality who's not afraid to offer an opinion, or take on a cause. Zahn is nothing more than a recycled network news babe, squishily liberal and completely unwatachable. And, BTW, the big reason that Paula's in primetime (other than being unable to dent Fox's lead in the morning), is that CNN's "other" big star, Aaron Brown, has been a total flop in the evening. "Arrogant Aaron" (as he's known at CNN) is on his way out; CNN's new president doesn't want to commit more money to network has-beens, knowing he's going to have to fire both Zahn and Brown in the near future, and eat a big chunk of their contracts in the process. In the meantime, Zahn will chug along in the evening, and some no-names will fill the morning slot. It's tantamout to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
One final thought: MSNBC has provided some very compelling war coverage and attracted quite a few new viewers in recent weeks. If Neal Shapiro will play his cards right (no pun intended), he can build on the momentum and give CNN a run for its money. Then, watch for some real panic in Atlanta. CNN management still doesn't have a clue, but MSNBC is catching on.
Wishful thinking on the NYT's part. What makes FNC different -- and what has put it on top -- is that it actually challenges the left wing ideology that dominated the national media for decades, even in the reporting of "hard" news. Anyone who watches FNC regularly realizes that the liberals have no problem getting their views across, but these views are vigorously challenged by conservatives (and, of course, vice versa). Prior to FNC, the only "skepticism" or challenge that you would see on CNN or other major media came predominately from the left, not from the right.
Try, "a range of opinion that leaves out a large MAJORITY of the country."
My thesis was that at least half of the population of the US is right wing (probably more) and since the left was already coveted by their competition, they would be well served to cater to the right.
I also opined that conservatives were more attenitive to news and political veiws than liberals as a whole. I pointed out Rush Limbaugh's rise to popularity and the lefts utter failure in this venue.
Do you think that Fox listened to me?
blah, blah, blah...like what CNN used when covering Baghdad for 12 years? That "healthy skepticism" has turned the NYT into denial and in that it seems to believe it must disagree with anything and everything this President does. Of course, that skepticism subsides when a Democrat is in the White House. Objectivity? THE NYT doesn't have any and neither does CNN.
They talk about the lack of debate. Baloney! FNC has more debates than all of the other channels combined. CBS, NBC, ABC rarely display a conservative point of view and CNN rarely has conservatives on its programs. They can all try to pounce on FNC but the reality is it is the only channel that presents both sides of the story. Evidently, just presenting the conservative side of an issue makes a channel "conservative" but only presenting the liberal side of an issue doesn't make a channel "liberal." It's total BS and they are all in denial.
Help me, I'm ROTFLMAO. Let's substitute the following for the underlined words above.....
using it's admitted policy of withholding information from viewers, knowingly and willingly promoting the Iraqi government propaganda as if it were news, and of course inserting their anti-Bush bias in all shows.
This CBS executive is absolutely clueless. The mainstream press is as "objective and fair" as Baghdad Bob.
I turned over to MSNBC for the first time in years to watch our own FReeper Kristinn who was scheduled to be on Scarborough's show only to hear them bashing Bill O'reilly. LOL.
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.