Is Fox News in the Right?

Obama's administration, through several avenues, has recently criticized Fox News for being ideologically driven and not a reputable news source. Truly shocking. Truly shocking that it took this long. I don't care what political orientation you have, this is a great opportunity for Americans (inside and outside of the press) to have a serious discussion on the information we use to stabilize society.

Sidney Lumet hit the intrinsic flaws of television news in his film NETWORK--and that was in 1976! Television, more so than print media, is commercial. Networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, etc) are not owned by the government so they are victims and conquers of a capitalist system that thrives on people's inadvertent inattention to detail. Even simpler: quicker news=more viewers; more viewers=more money.

You get more viewers by being entertaining, by creating a hook. In the news, this is done with colorful personalities making any news of any day relevant--this how some missing children become near-celebrities, as the news can't have reruns. The colorful personalities make editorials to appeal to a fanbase that will then always come back to said color personality. Did it start with Walter Cronkite? Maybe. But his editorializing of the Vietnam War was just that: of the Vietnam War. He didn't say, "Prez Johnson is a trigger-happy, close-talking imperialist."

And if Cronkite had said that, that's okay, too. It's called editorials. Or op-eds. The problem that the Obama administration has with Fox News is that their news division, the anchors, the producers, reporters all have an ideology that, while legal, should not influence the natural news cycle. Time and time again, Fox News has given "fair and balanced" air-time to clearly unequal factoids, experts or events. In fact, this very controversy is a great example. As of 4:13 PM, 10.19.09, the ABC News, CNN, MSNBC, and even WikiNews main web pages have no mention of the White House's "war on Fox News". Conversely, Fox News has dedicated no less than 1/3 of it's entire main page to the ideological battle. Does this mean everybody except Fox News is in Obama's pocket? No. It's means that nobody else cares. The White House doesn't have that kind of power. No White House ever will. Nobody else gave nearly as much coverage/praise/publicity to the Tea Party protests, a clearly radical and aimless political sit-in. Seriously, once the Hitler-mustache is drawn it's a radical opinion, regardless of the person sporting the crumb brush.

It's also vital to remember that Obama isn't boycotting Fox News. His advisers will still make their rounds in a vain effort to reach out to "real" Americans. Hell, Obama has already subjected himself to Fox News interviews since the polarizing election season (which was actually all of 2008). Where was this discussion 2, 4, or 6 years ago? President Bush had an unbelievable disrespect for "liberal" journalism, in any form. Aside from giving reporters unwarranted and unwanted nicknames like "Stretch" and "Stretch Junior"...you know, never mind, this isn't about Bush, this is about covering the news.

Maybe I don't know where the line is between reporting and editorializing, as reporting straight facts is inevitably going to carry its own bias. (Ex. Did the Bush administration push the Dow to unprecedented levels or cause a 6,000 point drop in one year? Answer: both.) But when I see a news producer chanting rally cries for a radical political group, I know the line has been long passed.

24-hour news has a lot of problems. They are all susceptible to varying degrees of broad casted ideology, they all have fact-checking problems and annoyingly irrelevant news stories (if I see one more newly-popular YouTube video...I can't be held responsible for my actions). And again, nothing is wrong with opinions, analyzing, round-table discussions, interviews and other programming decisions. But there should be a clear indicator of when the news turns from reporting to personalizing and politicizing (which is apparently more entertaining to viewers).

Perhaps this is a little late but I'll just make clear that this entire piece is an editorial, and while it may inform readers using the best information at my (immediate) disposal, it is littered with long-winded grammatical and literary flare for fun and persuasive reading. Also there are a few, now intentional, misspellings.

On yet another side note, an easy way to cut down on the colorful personality "problem" is to have a randomized anchor system within the structure show programing. This would mean that viewers could not tune in to see what anchor Chip L. Stonewood has to say, but rather tune it to hear the news of the day. From there, the anchors/reports/pundits could no longer create financially profitable fanbases. Of course an idea this genius has to have considerable flaws, but it's viable example of problem solving.

So yeah, I applaud the Obama administration for accusing Fox News of being an unreliable and politically-driven news source. It raises the level of discussion in America above what celebrity failed to pay income taxes. I also understand that television will play to whatever audiences will watch. There's a market for it. There's also a market for rocket launchers and cocaine--but the federal government restricts that arm of capitalism. The difference with certain news-related programing though is that The Daily Show and like-minded, arguably liberal-leaning, comedy shows boast their intentions for comedy. The same clarity should be done for news outlets. Enough of this "voice of the people" shit, just say what you are. Say what you want to say and move on. Educate through entertainment if you must, but don't replace education with controversy-baiting, fear-mongering ideologues.

That's the bigger point and, today, that's my point.