STREET LEGAL! Fox can (pretty much) do what it wants, Maddow oddly proclaimed: // link // print // previous // next //
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2009
Its all about the benjamins: In Tuesdays New York Times, Bill Carter reported the latest cable news ratings, which show CNN sinking in prime time. That said, we were struck, as we often are, by one part of Carters approach: http:
Theres some very weak editing there. (What time is Larry King on? CNN averaged 202,000 viewers when? All day? Throughout prime time?) But we were struck by Carters (conventional) decision to report these programs ratings only among the 25- to 54-year-old audience that news sells to advertisers.
The suitsthe money-changerscare most about them, because theyre most likely to buy worthless products. But why should Carter adopt that preference? In fact, the 25- to 54-year-old audience that news sells to advertisers represents a surprisingly slender slice of these programs overall audience. For example:
This Monday evening, 330,000 viewers in that age group watched Countdown. But the programs overall audience was much larger: 1.1 million. Ditto for Mondays OReilly Factor. The program had 998,000 viewers in the 25- to 54-year-old audience that news sells to advertisers. But the programs overall audience was 3.6 million. (For full data, click here.)
Money-grubbing network suits care about the prize demographic. So do anchors ,who want to maintain the pleasing salaries which reflect their societal worth. But why should Carter adopt that preference? Why should Times readers be so directed? That preference is all about selling products. What about the larger societal interest? What about the way these programs move news and information?
The people Carter focuses on are most likely to buy worthless products. For that reason, the suitsand the anchorsprize their eyeballs. But the people Carter omits from his story are in some cases more likely to vote. What is cable news mainly about in the mind of a scribe like Carter?
Is cable news about the spread of information to voters? Or is it about the sale of soap products? Carter, in a conventional move, walks through that second door.
PART 2STREET LEGAL: In the beginning, we all got the word. And the word came to us straight from Fox.
The White House had said that they werent a real news org. In the New York Times, Brian Stelter reported their push-back. Fox contends that the administration is confusing its news programs with its opinion programming, Stelter reported:
And so verily, we got the word from Fox. Their news reports are objective, Fox said. And the rest of the programs are just opinion! Its just opinion! Who cares?
By last Sunday, on Reliable Sources, the whole wide world was taking turns reciting this utterly foolish distinction (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/27/09). Everybody seemed to say or imply the same thing: It doesnt really make sense to criticize opinion programs. This is an utterly ludicrous claimand it came to us straight outta Fox. But everyonethe liberal, the professor and the hostseemed to endorse what Fox said.
Are opinion programs ripe for criticism? Of course they are! Except when the whole world is channeling Fox, such programs operate under most of the rules which govern straight news reporting. Indeed, people criticize opinion programsand opinion columnsall the bloomin time. They do this because opinion programs can commit a wide range of sins:
Opinion programs can break many rules. But go ahead! Find the person, on Sundays show, who showed any sign of knowing.
Alas! Its hard to build a serious critique of Fox when everyone traffics in silly FoxThink. But go ahead! Read Sundays transcript! See if you can find a place where anyone stated whats blindingly obvious:
Opinion shows, just like news shows, are subject to basic journalistic rules about accuracy, fairness and sensible focus.
Opinion shows, just like news show, can destroy the public discourse.
Sundays discussion was stunningly weak. But then, on Friday nights Rachel Maddow Show, Maddow also seemed to be getting her theories about these matters straight from Fox. Maddow devoted a complete segment to her views about why Fox aint a news org. Some of what she said made sense. But in many ways, it was pure primal FoxThink.
Is Fox a news station? Maddow asked. (To read the full transcript, click this.) In this, the start of her rumination, her statements still made basic sense:
That is correct. Individual journalists can express their opinionsand still report the news responsibly. A news station can present opinion in one part of the broadcast dayand present good news reporting elsewhere. Opinion and news can even be mingled in a single program! But then too, there are about a million ways in which a news channel can produce poisoned opinion programmingprogramming which traffics in bogus facts, trivial topics, hysterical frameworks and language. Maddow never said a word about any of these basic problemsproblems which often obtain on her program. Instead, she moved ahead to her own nuanced view of why Fox aint a news station:
Maddow is right. It was unusual when Fox, and Beck, played such an active role in promoting a political protest. (Well avert our gaze from Maddows repeated odd phrase, against the U.S. government.) But in this passage, Maddow said her last words about any other offences which are committed by Foxs opinion programs. As she finished her analysis, you might think that Fox would be A-OK if it would just drop the Tea Party bull-crap:
Maddow returned to her weird complaints about anti-government street protests. But good grief! Its a free country and Fox can do what it wants? This was a thoroughly hopeless analysis, offered at the very top of the alleged progressive news world.
Fox of course can do what it wantsas long as what it does is legal. But surely, no one would claim that opinion programsor opinion columnscan only be criticized when they break the law! But in her presentation, Maddow presented no standard for judging an opinion program as long as it doesnt break the law or promote anti-government protests. This was a remarkably weak analysisan analysis which largely furthered the utterly silly distinction initially put forward by Fox.
Sorry. The liberal world will never create a winning critique of Fox as long as were burdened with analyses like thislike that which seemed to rule the day on Sundays Reliable Sources. Opinion has always been a kissing cousin to news? Yes, thats trueand thats why opinion journalism must play by most of the same basic rules which regulate news reporting. Of course, Maddow herself enjoys breaking those rules, which may have tilted her theoretic.
Well return to that awkward point on Friday, as we scan some recent opinion programming on MSNBC. Tomorrow, a look at Fox, on a night when it wasnt breaking the lawwhen it wasnt promoting a protest movement against the U.S. government. Well look at Fox on a night when Sean Hannity may have been pushing a pile of pure crap.
No, he wasnt breaking the law. Can that really be our sole standard?