>
>
Almost there...
Posted on 04/16/2003 5:59:35 PM PDT by Pharmboy
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."
Oh, by all means, take that quality time. :-) I know I have. But it behooves us to not dwell on our victories too long, because victory can be fleeting (ask Bush I). I know I sound like a spider monkey on crack about this issue, but I was raised by a political consultant and surrounded by policians/consultants growing up...the consultant bit rubbed off on me a little. :p
As we now know, CNN wasn't too skeptical about the assertions of Iraq's government. And I get tired of the likes of Dan Rather and Baba Wawa cooing over the likes of Saddam and Castro! Only when a government is free and democratic do 'mainstream journalists' show skepticism toward it.
And let's not forget about 'mainstream journalists' uncritically accepting Clinton's statement: "I did not have sex with that woman." In other words, only when a politician is honest, like Reagan or Bush, do 'mainstream journalists' act suspicious, and only when the politician is dishonest, like Clinton or Gore, do they act naively trusting. Maybe this says something about the character of 'mainstream journalists,' that they do not recognize the lack of integrity in themselves, and therefore they cannot recognize the lack or presence of integrity in others.
Limbaugh is an inspiration to me in this regard. I started listening to him in the mid-nineties out of curiosity surrounding a "Rush is Right" bumper sticker I saw.
What I was facinated by was the fact that A) he gave a voice to the opinions I had formed independent of anyone or any group. B) the attack he was under did not square with my observation of what the guy was all about.
This was in fact my first experience with raw unconcealed fraudulant character assassination. It really opened my eyes. But Rush perservered, survived. He is still drawing fire, but his audience/influence continues to grow. So I am emboldened by the knowledge that the truth can win.
Being the target of character assassination is no longer something to avoid, it is a sign that you are making powerful adversaries nervous. So much so that they are willing to risk the eventual loss of their own credibility and political future hoping you will lose the will to fight before you can turn the world against them.
That just makes me all the more determined.
Eddie01
That may sound harsh, but it's absolutely true. These people think the world revolves around Manhattan, just like Hollywood thinks it speaks for the mass majority.
They won't believe otherwise until the market for their product dries up.
Being the target of character assassination is no longer something to avoid, it is a sign that you are making powerful adversaries nervous. So much so that they are willing to risk the eventual loss of their own credibility and political future hoping you will lose the will to fight before you can turn the world against them.
Yes, but these people are as dangerous as ANY dictator when they start to see their grip on power going. They lost DC; now they see themselves starting to lose hold over the media. This makes them...very, very dangerous.
You're half right. It has nothing to do with integrity, though. It has everything to do with the media's own bias and the R's that are next to Reagan and Bush's names, and the D's that are next to Clinton and Gore's...THAT is why they attack Bush and give Clinton a pass.
> >
Almost there...
This article is full of loaded words & phrases that tip the author's bias. Funny how all the usual suspects (ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, LAT, etc.) believe they are not biased despite 90% of them are registered Dems. They just can't stop bitchin' about Fox can they? heheheheh
I couldn't agree more if I had a PhD in Agreement from the National Agreement Institute.
The left is reeling right now. This not the time to lay off them -- it's the time to LAY INTO them! They did it gleefully to us when they were in power and we were a bit on the ropes, as you pointed out. If we start doing this sort of thing, we won't have to keep talking about "fighting *back", because, as Bush has just proven -- pre-emption DOES work. And it works for liberal rhetoric, too. ;-)
Says who?
Rutenberg?
Shepard Smith and Co are graduates of the Joe Goebbels school of Propaganda, but Rather and Jennings and CNNWPCBSNBCLATNYT are objective?
Don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain, the Wizard of the Left is exposed.
"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 Mr. Heyward of CBS just said is analogous to, "I support the troops and I'm against the war."
Since Mr. Heyward believes in market forces and people deciding which television channels they watch and at the same time he's concerned that many channels will flock to emulate Fox, it leaves the door wide open for CBS to program more of what it considers legitimate debate, more journalists' skepticism and more heated journalistic inquiry.
Go right ahead Mr. Heyward and claim support for market forces and the audience's ability to choose which channels to watch and if many channels begin emulating Fox you can be against that and do your own brand of programming. Then sit back and see whether CBS gains or losses market share.
I caution against dictating to the market what it wants. As one reporter from one of the big three networks said in passing at a cocktail party, "When we want your opinion, we'll give it to you."
"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."
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.
More like they're scratching their heads trying to figure out how to extricate their news programs from the house of cards illusion they created.
They could go further left, nah, that won't work. What do you suppose they are thinking? "We can't move towards the center because that's where we already are. I guess we'll maybe have to move to the right of center. But it probably makes more sense if we move the other way towards the left of center"
That's what happens when they believe their own fabricated illusions. What a hoot!
Come to think of it, the whole right versus left thing is a Hobson's choice anyways.
What do you get in return for your tax dollars?
Introduction
Voting for the lesser of evils always begets evil. How can so many people thinking they're right be so wrong?
Before voting for a politician make sure that they address Issue 101. Demand that of media outlets too.
Issue 101 -- The House of Cards
How is it that people and society in general have prospered and increased their well being for decades yet the politicians and bureaucrats say we must have another 3,000 laws and regulations each year on top of the 100,000+ laws already on the books... That without them people and society face "disaster". People and society have done quite well without next year's 3,000 new federal laws and regulations. Why all of a sudden can people and society not continue to do quite well without them? The fact is, they'd be better off without 99% of them.
So who really benefits from 3,000 new laws and regulations each year? -- not to mention state laws and regulations. Politicians and bureaucrats. They create boogieman problems and with a complicit media towing their boogieman problems cast a net of false fear and unwarranted despair in people.
Quite literally, they create problems where none exist. They're sick in that they chose to frighten people and foist false despair on them and do that to collect their unearned paychecks. Their job security is predicated on deceiving as many people as possible.
It cost more than just two trillion dollars a year to fund government abuse. That abuse hinders people's development, especially children being indoctrinated rather than educated, harms the economy and is largely responsible for causing false booms and reality-adjusting bust cycles in markets.
Flushing that money down the toilet -- save for military defense spending -- would be better for individuals, their families and society. That's a different way of saying, can't we just pay congress to stay home and not leave their houses. Surely we'd be better off. Politicians and bureaucrats are sick and need your help.
Fully integrated honesty is key. That we have the government we have -- delivered by both Democrats and Republicans -- that has gone so far off course from the government the founders created, is a product of irrationality and dishonesty. Changing the laws via the system is almost completely useless. Politicians create dozens of unconstitutional laws before even considering repealing just one unconstitutional law.
That is not a system -- it's a quagmire of deception, irrationality, fraud and abuse.
Politics is not the solution -- politics is the problem.
Who are the parasites?
Who are the producers?
Ostracizing the parasitical value destroyers
Praise the value producers
Step one for helping politicians and bureaucrats:
Get your head out of their sandbox.
Step two: Demand that they address Issue 101. Do the same with the media.
Step three: Ostracize government officials that fail to honestly address Issue 101. Do the same with the media.
Step four: Champion science and business communities -- often under relentless attack by the government. For they create jobs, necessities, luxuries and ever greater advancements that support human life, family and society.
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.