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

NY Times ^ | April 16, 2003 | JIM RUTENBERG

[Pharmboy]

"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."

He was being sarcastic, right? He can't be that out of it to actually have spoken these words, right?

[TomServo]

Already posted here.

[Uncle Hal]

The main stream media is beside it self because of the success of Fox News. Obviously the liberals and their cohorts are running scared. If anything, FNC is the most balanced news channel on the air. The Dems realize they were hurt in the last election because of FNC, talk radio, the internet etc. and they are striking back.

[ml/nj]

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

As opposed to the dispassionate reporting in The Times?

ML/NJ

[Pharmboy]

Y'know, I searched not ONE but TWO search terms to check whether this story had been posted. According to search, it wasn't.

[ShadowDancer]

Still awfully busy, I see.

[TomServo]

Searching for the word, 'Coverage' (sans quotes) and scrolling down a bit show it. It's tough sometimes...;-)

[timestax]

[TomServo]

Still awfully busy, I see.

You bet sweetie. Making flapjacks for Buffy and Jody, dontchaknow... ;-)

[x1stcav]

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.

Imagine referring to Americans in Uniform as our troops. Whose troops are they if they're not ours? This article show a lot about the menatl/emotional state of the media.

[William McKinley]

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.

The NY Times can't even bother to ask the salient question:

ARE THEY RIGHT?

Look into International A.N.S.W.E.R. Look into the Black Bloc.

But that doesn't matter to the Times. What matters to them is that someone is pointing it out.

[William McKinley]

And btw:

Fox has brought prominence to a new sort of TV journalism that casts aside traditional notions of objectivity,

True. Because the 'traditional' notions of objectivity have nothing to do with objectivity.

holds contempt for dissent

Fox does not. It does hold contempt, however, for the anarchists and communists. Dissent like Elanor Clift and Alan Colmes and Susan Estrich get plenty of airtime and a fair hearing.

and eschews the skepticism of government at mainstream journalism's core.

Is mainstream journalism at the right place? Skeptism is good-- and people would agree with that. Is 'skeptism' what the mainstream media has and Fox lacks?

People are voting and saying "no".

[ShadowDancer]

"I am so proud of you."

[KansasCanadian]

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

Flip side of the coin: CNN's formula had already proved there were low ratings in opinionated news with an anti-America flair.

[Tribune7]

eschews the skepticism of government at mainstream journalism's core.

Did CNN express skepticism of Saddam's government? Did Dan Rather express skepticism of Castro? Did any of these bozos express skepticism of Clinton?

Fox is certainly pro America but I don't think they would cover up for Dubya if it turned out he was taking campagin contributions from Chicoms/Haiti/Indonesia etc or violating sexual harassment laws he had campaign upon and signed into existence.

[Reagan is King]

What BS! How about this quote too:

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.

Did he say objectivity?! BWAHAHAHA, and this coming from the Iraqi mouthpiece the NYT! What would they know about objectivity?

The conservatives have ONE channel and the liberals are in total meltdown over it. They have NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN/MSNBC/PBS + the largest radio network (NPR with 800 stations) + NYT + Washington Post and they still think they're losing. I love it!

[YOMO]

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

So much for the 19th. Century FOX snipe.

[arasina]

"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.

And those market forces are exactly what caused Fox News Channel to beat the pants off CBS. First time in history a little ol' cable channel beat a "major" network. Keep doing what you're doing, Mr. Heyward. Forget what business you're in, keep paying your leftist anti-American anchors enormous salaries, continue serving up spin for dinner and pretty soon we'll all be saying "C'ya, CBS!"

[TomServo]

LOL!!! Always the charmer!!!

[In mourning for six years]

You are quite correct FNC would not cover up any wrong doing by W. For example right before the election of 2000 the person who broke the story concerning W's twenty year old DUI was FNC's Carl Cameron.