Posted on 04/25/2017 9:05:07 PM PDT by OneVike
How the mighty have fallen!”
The biblical lament has particular relevance this week, as Bill O’Reilly—trusted by millions of Americans every weeknight since 1996 on his “spin-stopping” Fox News program The O’Reilly Factor—will not return to the network following an exposé of alleged sexual harassment incidents over the past decade.
The announcement follows other high-profile departures from the nation’s top cable news network in recent months. Notably, prime-time anchor Megyn Kelly will soon debut as a news commentator for NBC News—following her lead role in last summer’s resignation by Fox News president and founder Roger Ailes, who was forced out by sexual misconduct charges similar to those facing O’Reilly.
It’s a confusing moment for many Americans. Without doubt, loyal viewers of Fox News played an outsized role in the historic election of President Donald Trump. Many are now evaluating his administration’s first 100 days, enumerating what accomplishments to trumpet in defense of their electoral choice while grappling with the former reality TV star’s limitations as a statesman.
Without O’Reilly to “look out for the folks” (as he often stated was his driving factor), the 24/7 fair and balanced coverage suddenly seems less reliable to help cable TV viewers in this evaluative process. What will the network’s future hold? The answer will surely take cues from its past, including the unprecedented events of 2016.
The easy route for conservatives would be to dismiss the upheaval at Fox News—long anchored by O’Reilly, perched atop the ratings behemoth—as another mainstream media plot, a coordinated effort to take down what many on the right consider the only “truth serum” in news media. That perspective has factual elements, but it’s not the entire story.
Those who welcome even some of how Fox News has changed the national media landscape should think critically about recent events and what knowledgeable critics are saying. In the Unresolved Problem segment tonight, here are five reasons why trust in Fox News has eroded over the past year.
1. Cozy Relationship with Trump Campaign Bordering on Promotion
Back in 2011, Fox and Friends began an unusual feature for a morning variety show— every week, New York real estate mogul Donald Trump would call-in and banter with hosts regarding the news of the day. As reported by New York magazine, this segment came about as a favor from Roger Ailes to Trump.
Fast forward to spring 2016, when the Republican field was still large. Coverage of Senators Cruz and Rubio was drowned out on Fox News and its competition, while unpredictable yet camera-ready candidate Trump seemed to get wall-to-wall attention.
During frequent on-air interviews, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity offered Trump friendly deference delivered with a collegial tone. “Why are we successful? What’s the reason? Part of the reason is people like me,” Hannity said in an interview last October with the New York Times, questioned about his support of Trump. “This is the spice! We’re getting back to the spicy part of the network, the one that pays the bills.”
The eventful, at times bumpy, relationship between Fox News and Donald Trump in recent years is too lengthy to fully recount here. But its climax is unmistakable, when President Trump became leader of the free world roughly 100 days ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at Christian Headline News ...
Great post, OneVike!
I highly doubt that this man is a follower of Jesus Christ, ie. a Christian. He isn’t a Conservative, either. I’m happy that you gave him what-for!
That’s great :)
my fat cat is 14 pounds and I kept picturing my little buddy as their lunch and winced :)
I think it’s more of an inspiration thing than a time thing. That’s inspired writing and can’t be forced. The moment will once again hit you to add great words to it.
No telling what James and Lachlan Murdoch and their wives will do to Fox.
No telling how much Trump will be able to repair all the damage done to the USA.
No telling when Jesus is coming back for the Church, but it may be real soon.
Is Josh M. Shepherd the pen name for Anderson “Vanderbilt” Cooper?
Good reply.
Imagree, but he blew it on the rest
Excellent! ....Should appear in OpEd columns across the US!
Fox went to hell long ago.
Sure did. O'Reilly was never a conservative, just one of our ( New Yorkers ) Rockefeller Republicans morphing into a limousine liberal as he got rich. Hannity is of course a bona fide conservative but was purposefully balanced against Colmes from the very beginning. No-one else on that network in the early years was remotely conservative. Pretty much one conservative for every 50 liberals and 100 squishy moderates.
When Fox the TV network began, I mean when Murdoch bought up local stations and literally began to create the 4th national network, among them was "Metromedia", a local Tri-State TV channel people could get over the air. It was, how can we describe it, "loose" and "freewheeling" and "informal" and "street" and "edgy" and "morning-zoo" style, not the prim and proper stuffed shirt stuff. This style carried over to the new network proper "Fox 5" in the live shows and news broadcasts and related. This is a bit of New York or Tri-State ( especially Jersey ) street style, and our local stuff in the city and vicinity was often like this.
Then when Murdoch and Ailes got into cable with FNC, it was instantly present on every nearly single thing they did as they were really an extension of the Fox mother ship. O'Reilly and Hannity/Colmes were great examples of "edgy" near-tabloid style news which was intentional to break away from the Koppel/Jennings/Rather/CNN prototype. They did have more organized straight stuff like Catherine Crier and Paula Zahn, later Greta, but nearly every show had that "rebel" approach, intentionally. They also had chics in short skirts. Blondes. Blondes in skirts. The point is, people all around the country who were not familiar with the Murdoch tabloid style ( eventually parodies in Idiocracy ) set their hopes way too high for this network.
Except for Hannity, FNC was clearly in the tank for Clinton around the impeachment fiasco which was not long after they first went on the air, and then mostly took the side of the Fascist regime during the Elian Gonzalez kidnapping. Had they been around during Waco it would have been more of the same.
It was patently unfair the treatment O'Reilly got, and it pains me to say that since I can't stand him one bit. Hated him since he went on a virtue jihad when Strom Thurmond died. Actually it was a year before before that when he turned 100 years old and BOR jumped on the politically correct bandwagon attacking Trent Lott for complimenting the old man saying he would have been a great President. But when he died, he attacked one of his guests representing Thurmond's halfrican daughter by a black lady who Strom Thurmond had a relationship with and supported secretly her entire life. Apparently his daughter wasn't willing to criticize her father for being a dixiecrat in the 1948 election against Truman. Always wanted to ask him:, "Hey Bill, Strom Thurmond the guy you keep calling racist has a black daughter, what do you got?". Douchebag.
Ironically they are more conservative today than in the past with Hannity, Waters, Pirro, ummm, okay that's three, two more than in the past except for those couple years with Glenn Beck before he went insane. Murdoch Inc. served us a crap sandwich which was slightly more edible than the diarrhea on the menu at CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and PBS.
So she's the one.
i like Tucker, but I hate watching these dummies he debates. There has to be a better format for that show. I know he makes good points but I can’t stand watching the opposition one segment at a time. Is it only me? Or do others feel the same. Just curious.
Yep.
Have never read or heard a better description of O'Reilly.
F&F gave Trump 10 minutes, once a week? Well, gee! NBC gave Trump an hour a week on "The Apprentice"! Were they pushing Trump, also! What a douche this writer is!
Thanks for the Ping.
I live in the South. Quite often I find when two southerners are having a discussion the one standing further south will treat the other as a damn yankee.
Conservatives and to some extent Christians, do the same thing. “Your level of conservatism is impure compared to mine.” (Not you personally, OneVike.)
I prefer not to judge and will accept those who share my beliefs to whatever extent that we do. Not every conservative is righteous but I try to focus on what we have in common rather than what we don’t.
It’s akin to the Protestant/Catholic devide; we are all Christians. Yes we have differences but, let’s stop forming circular firing squads every time we interact.
I think Fox News has changed but I continue to watch as it is better than most outlets. Yes, I skip Shep and wish John McCain would retire and have differences with the Pope. I too fall short of the Glory of God.
Jesus will return at the end of the age but expect the Christian Church to be tested by suffering to see how faithful. There will be no rapture.
Indeed, this person didn't watch FOX on election night...as I did not.
When I arrived home from work my wife was watching FOX. This was about 5:30 PM Central. The election team was offering their outline of how the coverage would be presented. Brit Hume was providing "expert" color commentary.
He explained the 91% likelihood that clinton would like the outcome. He wore a self satisfied smirk. I could think of no other way to describe it. Just because of that I decided to watch NETFLIX for anything in the world but election coverage.
Suggesting people like Hume or Megyn Kelly were pro Trump shows utter delusion. Reruns of FOX coverage made it look like Kelly was going to get emotional when the outcome was certain and not in a "Hail fellow, well met" way.
I despise propaganda. I HATE propaganda even more when it is delivered under the “Christian” name.
Contrary to popular opinion, that unfortunately is what journalism is.4. Lack of Ideological Diversity, Especially on Hot Topics Like Race RelationsThe dicta of journalism are, “If it bleeds, it leads” and “'Man Bites Dog’ not ‘Dog Bites Man.’” And also, “Always make your deadline.” Those are commercial, not philosophical, considerations. Following those dictates is necessary to attract and maintain an audience.
“Man Bites Dog” never happens in real life; if the newspaper says it did, you should consider the possibility that the reporter might be making it up. And and also that he is just not mentioning the million times the dog bites the man.
Journalism is entertainment. But journalism claims to be objective, knowing that in fact it is negative. And yet, claiming that negativity is objectivity is pretty much a spot-on definition of cynicism.
Journalism is
negativecynical about society, about the people and institutions which make the country work. But journalism considers itself the pilot fish of government, and never criticizes government for what it does - only for what it does not do. Journalism systematically sets itself - and the government, of which it considers itself the leader - up as a tin god. This is the natural “ideology” of journalism.
All other news outlets lack ideological diversity because they always adhere to “Man Bites Dog." That would be counter to the narrative of all so-called “objective” journalism.SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.Journalists, like all “liberals,” are the " writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them."Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
I never made it past that line. It was pretty stunning to read.
Fact is, Fox has been losing ground since they began lurching leftward and that dates back quite a while. They are almost as guilty of giving Obama a pass as the rest of the alphabet MSM, but have retained a few conservative voices to add the illusion of balance. And who can forget Shep standing on that bridge, post-Katrina, whining about how slow the federal government was in bringing help.
When BOR started dumping on “bloggers” and the internet my gut feeling is he was referring to Free Republic.
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.