Cable's War Coverage Suggests a New 'Fox Effect' on Television

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."

You got it exactly right. In the 1830s, the Jacksonians really started the first true "partisan" party presses, and newspapers were blatantly, obviously political. They said so, up front.

After the Civil War, however, there was a shift to a broader market that attempted to play down partisanship in favor of "facts" and "objectivity." To an extent, that held for about 100 years (and you can always find exceptions---the "Yellow Press," the medias treatment of McCarthy). But something happened in the 1960s that caused this to change---a transformation BACK to a partisan press.(Ane there is nothing wrong with this if it is presented as such, rather than as an "objective" world view that seeks to lie about its biases. FOX really should change its slogan to "truthful and fact-based." Whether it is "fair" is irrelevant.

This is the subject of my (ongoing) latest book.

This article is a riot. "Fair journalism" from ABC, NBC, CBS?

Since the end of the Vietnam War & Watergate, the "Big 3" networks have taken the following postion - The United States Government can never be trusted, only the media can be trusted.

This is a ludicrous position. You would have to believe that all of the journalists, editors & producers never lie and have ZERO bias in their reporting. Eason Jordan's astounding admission to suppressing negative news on Iraq shows how ridiculous the "Mainstream Media's" position actually is. Recently, Walter Cronkite revealed that he is a pacifist. I guess Mr. Cronkite gave us 100% unslanted news coverage without any opinion, right?

The "mainstream media" wants to try and hold the position that they and they alone are the arbitors of what the truth is. No one can be trusted but them. Any rational, clear thinking person will instantly recognize how ridiculous that position is.

Fox News has shattered the paradigm. "We report, you decide" is a slogan that is anathema to the mainstream press. "We decide for you, here's our report" has been their unofficial slogan. Most Americans don't like other people making up their minds for them. That is why Fox is overtaking and passing the other media.

Most Americans realize that EVERY PERSON will have some type of bias, large or small. Fox is upfront and tells you "We love America. We're Americans first, journalists second. Here's our report, you decide". Contrast that with CNN - From Christiane Amanpour to Peter Arnett to Eason Jordan, the task had been to try and find out what the agenda is and remember who is reporting what story, because it was obvious they had utter disdain for the US.

Fox's formula had already proved there were huge ratings in opinionated news with an America-first flair.

TRANSLATE: Fox has shown success in not following after the ABC CBS CNN ANTI-American opinions, left-wing radical, bias spew.

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.

TRANSLATION: Fox has brought TRUTH, HONESTY, and INTEGRITY, back to reporting, exposing the ABC CBS CNN left-wing radical agenda which supplanted their objectivity years ago. Fox has contempt for SPIN, in all its forms, especially in reporting NEWS.

FOX NEWS: "FAIR and BALANCED; We Report YOU Decide."

"Fox is upfront and tells you "We love America. We're Americans first, journalists second. Here's our report, you decide". Contrast that with CNN - From Christiane Amanpour to Peter Arnett to Eason Jordan, the task had been to try and find out what the agenda is and remember who is reporting what story, because it was obvious they had utter disdain for the US."

This is the key. There is no such thing as "unbiased." The mainstream media just refused to admit this for more than 2 decades. Fox essentially admits its bias and flaunts it, which is fine. In THAT sense alone, it IS "We report, you decide." Merely by WATCHING Fox, we decide it is more credible.

"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."

As Bernard Goldberg points out in Bias, it isn't that they see themselves as leftists or liberals - they see themselves as normal, reasonable, righteous and morally superior to the great unwashed in flyover country. Those who believe in the American Creed are seen as Neanderthal types at best. That's why they're always shocked and outraged when you start calling things by their proper names.

. "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."

You have got to be kidding!!! This guy is from CBS... you are honestly telling me you thing CBS is middle of the road?!? Dan Rather is a liberal apologist, CBS evening news is so tilted to the left that its idea of balance is no matter what happens, or how popular it is, find the 1 person in america who is against it and give him the same credibility and weight as the other 300 Million who are for it... that is not OBJECTIVE reporting.

Blaming "El Nino" for every weather event for a year IST NOT MIDDLE OF THE ROAD REPORTING... blaming "El Nino" on global Warming is not "MIDDLE OF THE ROAD" reporting. Allowing the campaign manager of the Clinton Campaign edit the interview you aired of him and Hillary for 60 minutes before airing it is not "MIDDLE OF THE ROAD" reporting. Putting people like Jesse Jackson on tv and claiming he represents black america, rather than his own selfish interests is not "MIDDLE OF THE ROAD" reporting. Refusing to challenge any liberal hack when they pop off some patently false statement is not "MIDDLE OF THE ROAD" reporting. Having 1 John Stossel for every 300 or so Dan Rather's is not "MIDDLE OF THE ROAD" reporting. Not reporting the financial backers of leftist activists, yet making sure everything that is remotely connected to Richard Scaife is not "MIDDLE OF THE ROAD" reporting.

All Fox has done is show the people what they already knew, that the emperor has no clothes. Because all the mainstream was tilted left, you all could perpetuate your self dillusion that you were middle of the road. We can't be biased, XYZ news is reporting the same things.... Well your little bubble has burst.

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."

Uh, as someone who has had to share the odiferace circumference with more than a few of these fools over the years... they are indeed the great unwashed... both metaphorically intellectually and in their physical cleanliness, at least more than a few in my experience.

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.

Neutral tone? What neutral tone? They are unabashedly liberal and they seem too dumb to figure it out. They think that just because it's the way they think, and the way their small circle of friends think, that it's neutral. It's not. They are the most small minded people in the country and the rest of us figured that out long ago. If they are not bright enough to figure that out, perhaps their best future lies in the unemployment lines.

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.

Oh Puhleez! Substitute the name Fox for oh, say, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, etc. etc. and you will see what THEY have been doing for the past umpteen years. But let a relatively conservative network be perceived use those same tactics and everybody screams bias. What a crock.

" 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."

LOL..You mean the objectivity of CBS charlatan Baghdad Dan Rather? The same 'objective' Dan Rather who attended democrat fundraisers and then, when caught, blamed it on his daughter.

The same 'objective' Dan Rather whose CBS network cut off several speeches by republicans during the 2000 GOP convention, then, when confronted by angry viewers, Rather promised to make it up to them by giving more air time to the democrat convention..!!!

The same 'objective' CBS anchor Dan Rather who told Bill Oreilly of Fox News that a person can lie about lots of things and still be honest to the core and that he believed Bill Clinton was an honest man.

The same 'objective' CBS anchor Dan Rather who told Bill Oreilly that he never heard of Juanita Broadrick, the Arkansas woman who, with great credibility, accused Bill Clinton of raping and mauling her in an Arkansas hotel.

The same 'ojective' CBS anchor Dan Rather who ridiculed the florida secretary of state Harris by misinforming his audience by claiming that Harris 'certified the election in the state of Florida as "she sees it and decrees it"... The secretary of state of Florida has no power to decree an election. Harris's function was purely ministerial.

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.