Fox News Moves From the Margins to the Mainstream

ESLIE H. GELB, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, watches international news obsessively, skipping from channel to channel. "I never watch a commercial," he said.

He now considers Fox News Channel often to be a more reliable news source for international reporting than CNN or the nightly network news. Fox, he said, provides a "fairer picture, a fuller version of the different parts of the arguments" over world affairs.

Mr. Gelb said he makes a distinction between Fox's news coverage and its opinion programs, like "The O'Reilly Factor," which he considers biased. But even here, he finds himself drawn to Fox. "CNN's commentary tends to be less biased and less interesting," he said.

A lot of other people who do not fit comfortably into the right-wing stereotype of Fox viewers apparently agree.

Last week, Fox News reported that its prime-time viewership had grown 17 percent for the month, compared with November 2001, while CNN's prime-time ratings fell 31 percent, continuing a pattern of dominance by Fox in the cable news wars. In the 24-hour cycle, Fox has a solid lead over CNN, and has left MSNBC in the dust.

While the total viewership of the three major network nightly news programs dwarfs that of the cable news channels, a more important statistic may well be that cable news is now a leading source of news for over half the country, followed by newspapers and local television. Network TV news was ranked fourth, in a survey conducted in January by the Pew Research Center.

And if cable news is now the nation's main news source, Fox — the self-described maverick outsider — finds itself in the peculiar position of being, arguably, the most powerful television news organization in the country, playing a major role in defining what is important and what is not.

Like it or not, Fox has become the establishment, with critics now bemoaning not just what they say is its bias but its dominating influence.

Fox's importance as a powerhouse was underscored last week when Al Gore named it first in a list of conservative news media that he said function as a "fifth column" in the larger media world. In an interview with The New York Observer, he complained of the influence now wielded by Fox, The Washington Times and Rush Limbaugh, among others, calling them "part and parcel of the Republican Party."

Undoubtedly, the popularity of President Bush and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress only enhance the outsider-into-insider transformation of Fox News. In his new book, Bob Woodward revealed that Roger Ailes, the Fox News president, sent a letter to President Bush after the terrorist attacks offering his advice.

But if Fox News were merely a Republican Party organ, it would almost certainly not have achieved the stunning popular success it has enjoyed since its start in October 1996. It has won a huge audience in a centrist nation where a majority favor stricter gun control and 80 percent think abortion should be sometimes or always legal, according to recent Gallup and CNN/USA Today polls.

Without doubt, its claim to offer "fair and balanced" news appeals to many people. In a conservative time, a time of war, Fox viewers like their news from a strong American perspective, with flags rippling in graphics and a pugnacity toward the nation's critics — the people John Gibson, host of Fox's nightly "Big Story," referred to last week as the peanut gallery. Such blunt speaking is a point of pride at Fox, which, for example, reports on "homicide bombers" in Israel, rather than "suicide bombers."

For the most part, Fox News is what William Kristol terms "the news network of Bush's America," the majority that approves of the way Mr. Bush is doing his job, especially since Sept. 11. Indeed, since the World Trade Center attacks, the number of people who list cable news as one of their prime news sources has increased substantially, which has proved a boon for Fox especially.

Mr. Kristol, a Fox News analyst who is editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said that Fox's audience perceives what is often termed "liberal bias" in other television news, but what he says should more accurately be called "liberal presumption and liberal condescension."

From the left, though, the Fox style of fairness is viewed as little more than a fig leaf for relentlessly hammering a conservative agenda. "I see it as a propaganda outlet," said Ruy Teixeira, a co-author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority," who occasionally fills the liberal seat on Fox talk programs. "They're the mouthpiece of this administration."

Mr. Ailes, who is regarded as the engine driving Fox's success, has promoted his network brilliantly with its constant "we report, you decide" mantra.

"Television is all about energy, and Fox has a lot more energy than its competitors," said Joe Klein, the New Yorker staff writer, who often covers politics, "and I hear of a lot more people moving in that direction."

Fox is the first television news network in the nation to be based on a niche — or, it appears, on two niches, which overlap somewhat, but are not the same.

One niche seeks an alternative to the news style of the major networks and CNN. For this audience, Fox has assembled a vigorous corps of reporters who cover the White House and foreign affairs in a way that appeals to viewers like Leslie Gelb. For instance, Mr. Gelb said that when allegations of massacres by Israelis in Jenin were first leveled earlier this year, Fox, unlike many other television news organizations, framed its reporting as "we don't know what happened." As it turned out, there was no evidence of a massacre.

But the bulk of Fox's ratings success is not from its hard news coverage. It comes from the other niche that apparently wants to see attitude — just not liberal attitude — on television.

The restraint of the Jenin massacre coverage is largely absent from the opinion portion of the Fox News lineup.

BRIT HUME'S "Special Report," a mix of news and talk, is ranked fifth among all cable news shows. Mr. Hume, a former star at ABC News, asks pointed questions of liberals and conservatives, but the tone of his program is still to the right of the more factual news programming on Fox.

But that rightward step becomes a gallop later in the evening, with "The O'Reilly Factor," which is the top-rated show on cable news, and "Hannity & Colmes," a pair of hosts ostensibly representing right and left, but which is dominated by the conservative Sean Hannity.

Indeed, four of the five top cable news programs are on Fox, with only "Larry King Live" representing CNN.

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, believes that Fox's strong and consistent personality is a huge part of its appeal, especially compared with what he views as CNN's floundering.

"There's no sense of uncertainty or experimentation on the air, like you now sometimes see on CNN," Mr. Rosenstiel said.

Fox argues that it is fair and balanced even in its opinion programming because it offers opportunities for liberals to express their views. Indeed, Mr. O'Reilly complains that he frequently has to beat the bushes to find liberals to argue with because so many are afraid to go on his show.

But Mr. Rosenstiel says he sees a core journalistic dishonesty in the Fox news style, as compared with other programs of opinion and analysis like CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports," Tim Russert's "Meet the Press" on NBC and Bob Schieffer's "Face the Nation" on CBS. The power of the host in such programs is enormous, because that person leads from topic to topic, and cuts off or extends debate.

"Blitzer and Russert and Schieffer are trying to cut it down the middle," Mr. Rosenstiel said. "Fox is not."

While Mr. Rosenstiel sees Fox as perhaps the forerunner of a more European style of broadcast journalism in the United States, he believes that there will remain a great opportunity for something that now does not exist in cable news.

The juggernaut continues to roll...

(Only the NewsMax summary of this Article was posted earlier I think???)

It has won a huge audience in a centrist nation where a majority favor stricter gun control and 80 percent think abortion should be sometimes or always legal, according to recent Gallup and CNN/USA Today polls.

What on earth does this mean? "Even though almost everybody really agrees with us, they still watch the news on Fox"???

80 percent think abortion should be sometimes or always legal

Typical distortion. I'm very pro-life, and I think abortion should sometimes be legal.

The only time I would consider it permissible is when a woman is incapable of carrying the baby to term, as in an ectopic pregnancy, or when the pregnancy is almost certain to result in the death of the mother. My rationale is based on the obvious principle that it's better to lose one life than two.

I hardly think that's a "liberal" position.

"On Fox, you can actually get a debate on abortion," Mr. Kristol said.
I would like to find such a "debate" on FOX. While I'm a big fan of FNC their 'debates' are just a joke and usually involve yelling by the host (BO'R) at a guest. What's debating about that?
I've also noticed that their weekend programming is terrible. I used to think it was that "Stock Pickin" show that seems to be on whenever I turn on the TV, but its grown to the Laurie Dhue show. They had another "The Economy is Fine!" Cheerleader on that offered no facts on why the economy is supposedly picking up, just her "feelings" on why people are spending more. Yeah I get more information at the corner deli, thank you.

"It has won a huge audience in a centrist nation where a majority favor stricter gun control and 80 percent think abortion should be sometimes or always legal, according to recent Gallup and CNN/USA Today polls"

He just HAD to throw that in, no matter that CNN/Gallup/USA Today polls are considered cr@p by conservatives.

And Fox News is going to lose it high ratings if the do not stop having 'alerts' for every stupid thing that happens in Hollywood. It has gotten bad enough that I don't watch Fox as much as I use to.

I am pro-life. I believe abortion should remain legal but be hard to get. I'm not that different from most Americans in holding this view. Those who would be out of step are the pro abort extremists who think that just cause abortion is legal means it should be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, no questions asked.

Haven't seen these polls. Would love to know how the questions were phrased.

I believe it was the New York Times that said that voters handed GWB a huge victory in the recent election even though they disagree with him on most issues. It's more of the same kind of nonsense. They're not even trying to make sense. And notice how they quote from some character from the CFR saying how much he likes Fox, knowing full well how conservatives dislike that organization. A very childish piece of reverse psychology there.

The NYT is not to be trusted. But they're right about one thing: Fox is eating the lunch of the other organizations because it's not a mouthpiece of the left, like the New York Times.

"Blitzer and Russert and Schieffer are trying to cut it down the middle," Mr. Rosenstiel said. "Fox is not."

Yep, right down the middle. To this guy, the middle seems to be just a little to the left of Chairman Mao.

They just can't figure it out can they? FOX IS fair and balanced. Yes, you have O'Reilly (who's not conservative, he's sort of middle of the road conservative on some issues, liberal on others) but you also have Greta and Geraldo who are both acknowledge died in the wool liberals with their own programs. You have H & C where both sides are presented and receive equal time. Special Report has two liberals and two conservatives during the talk segment.

The problem is these liberals can't see the truth when it stares them in the face. Oh well, if they don't get it, then they can just continue to their slide into the ratings pit all the way to bankruptcy.

FOX BUMP & 2 QUOTES:

Charles Krauthammer noted that he does not practice psychiatry on the air,
but the Democrats' behavior recently has been,
"the edge of looniness".

Tony Snow later remarked that,
".. decency and good remain our (American) taproot"

Speaking of FOX, did anyone catch Mansoor Ijaz's appearance a minute ago on FOX? I just caught the last couple of minutes. He was talking about some nuclear scientists who've gone missing in Pakistan in the last two or three weeks. And about concerns that al-Qaeda may try to fly a plane into an Indian nuke plant in order to foment a war between India and Pakistan. Anyone catch the whole interview?

You are not pro-life it you think abortion should be legal.

The legalization of abortion was forced on the country by an imperial Supreme Court, against a 2,000-year-old tradition. Legalized abortion means legalized killing. To say that abortion should be legal is much the same as saying that bank-robbery or arson should be legal--only worse, because a human life is involved.

Abortion should only be legal in cases where the baby is killed as a necessary and unintended side-effect of saving the mother's life, as in an ectopic pregnancy, where there is no chance that the child would survive in any case. Rape and incest are not the child's fault; if the mother understandably doesn't want to keep her child in those terrible circumstances, it can be adopted.

We don't really disagree do we? I have never said I favored abortion on demand nor do most Americans. I don't think we can realistically get abortion outlawed in the country without driving droves of women to the Democrats but what we can and should do is make abortion difficult to get. That's where the country is. Its obvious that NOW and PP have a vested interest in abortion on demand for both ideological and financial reasons but the country doesn't want easy access to abortion. The best way to advance the pro-life cause in this country is to offer alternatives to women without making them feel like we're taking away control over their bodies. I'll leave it up to NOW and PP to argue how that approach is anti-choice.

Can someone enlighten me, re the NYT, please. Why does my local paper (The Orange County Register) print so many of
their by-lines? Does the NYT sell them cheap? Also, I'm curious about the headlines over a NYT's article -- does the
NYT retain any control over the content of the headers?
I cancelled my 20 year subscription to the Register, when that paper reported a slanted NYT's poll, (which distorting the Davis/Simon race),on the front page - over the fold! I
no longer get the urge to throw something, while eating breakfast, when reading the Register. Even the LA Times
seems to be getting more fair in the non-editorial pages.

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.