Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Fox News, like every network, has a right to be biased

Published: Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Updated: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 22:10

Beck

Fox political commentator Glenn Beck attends the Time 100 Gala, a celebration of TIME Magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world in New York May 9.

The most important work of any criminal defense lawyer is done on behalf of clients who are almost certainly guilty.

Defending unsavory, even despicable, characters is not a line of work that will win you many friends.

But within the bounds of a justice system that begins with the presumption of innocence for all parties, it can be argued that those whose guilt seems most obvious are therefore most deserving of a vigorous legal defense.

It is in this spirit that I offer to you a defense of that most maligned party, Fox News Channel.

The charges against Fox are numerous, and many of them are true, or at least substantial.

Many portions of the networks coverage have a noticeable conservative slant.

The network has been consistently critical of the Obama administration – this is a significant change compared to the sympathetic tone it took during the Bush administration.

The network and its pundits are notorious for misrepresenting facts or blatantly reporting unadulterated falsehoods.

To add insult to injury, the network hides mockingly behind slogans like "We Report. You Decide," and "Fair and Balanced."

That short list covers the major themes present in any indictment of Fox and doesn't even touch on what is quite possibly the network's greatest sin – the continued employment of Glenn Beck.

Still, such generic assertions are hardly the worst things to have been said about Fox.

Former Democratic National Chairman and presidential candidate Howard Dean called the network a "right-wing propaganda machine."

Comedian Lee Camp went on one of Fox's own shows and called the network a "festival of ignorance."

Jacob Weisberg, former editor of Slate Magazine and a columnist for a number of major publications decried the network in a recent Newsweek editorial as "un-American."

The assumption underlying these attacks is that news media has a responsibility to be objective.

This is an easy assumption to defend, as the next person to come out against objectivity will be the first.

Objectivity may be the ultimate goal, but the reality of the situation is that it is extremely difficult to report on political matters in a way totally free of bias.

Politics, by its very nature, makes maintaining such objectivity difficult.

There is no such thing as a "neutral" political position. Even the most moderate opinion must be placed somewhere along the political spectrum.

The idea that news anchors and commentators, like Supreme Court nominees, don't have opinions about political topics is naive.

It's just not true.

Most reputable journalists do their best to suppress their personal biases and opinions.

Yet, even when the person reporting makes every effort to remain neutral, bias can sometimes persist.

In his book, "The Tipping Point," Malcolm Gladwell discusses an experiment that took place during the 1984 presidential campaign.

It compared the facial expressions of the three major news anchors at the time – NBC's Tom Brokaw, CBS's Dan Rather and ABC's Peter Jennings – when discussing Ronald Reagan.

The study demonstrated a link between Peter Jennings's relatively positive facial expressions toward Reagan with a statistically significant increased percentage of viewers who voted for him.

This was in spite of the fact that Jennings's verbal clues in reference to Reagan were separately judged to be no less objective or neutral than his counterparts. In fact, in a number of respects, ABC was demonstrated to be the network most hostile toward Reagan.

Effects like this are hardly confined to television.

A host of factors related to newspaper headlines and pull quotes (font size, word choice, punctuation) often convey an implicit message that stretches beyond merely informing the audience.

Decisions as seemingly benign as what picture accompanies an article, or even the tone of that picture's caption, can affect a reader's interpretation of an otherwise objective story.

Even what page a story lands on is sometimes the result of editorial bias.

In the eyes of most, the crime Fox News commits is attempting to cover its bias.

The networks pathetic attempts to cloak itself with a modicum of objectivity (see Colmes, Alan) are little more than an acknowledgement of the fact that it is politically incorrect in America for a news organization to have an agenda.

But is that really such a bad thing?

I say "no." As shocking as it may sound, Fox commentators often present reasonable, coherent arguments.

But that's beside the point. Fox News doesn't need to be the middle ground of American news media.

Let CNN or NBC handle that. Choosing sides doesn't give them a license to blatantly misrepresent facts or lie.

But presenting news and commentary with a political tint is hardly un-American.

The real crime Fox commits, however, is pretending to be something they are not. But what they are isn't so bad, at least in theory.

If the network wants to present the news from a conservative position and they find an audience for that viewpoint, go for it.

In a time when social consciousness and apathy are major threats to civic society, how is attracting attention to political issues a bad thing?

Attack them for their tenuous relationship to the truth, not for their ideological leanings.

Glenn Beck is a moron who happens to be conservative. But, it's the first adjective that matters when assessing his value.

Despite his best efforts, he does not have a monopoly on ridiculous ideas or shallow analysis.

Let Fox compete honestly in the marketplace of ideas as a conservative leaning organization.

They have a place in the national conversation, if for no other reason than to provide an outlet for conservative thinking and to attract like-minded citizens into the discussion and debate.

If they don't suit your tastes, flip over to their ideological counterparts at MSNBC or whatever network you prefer.

Or better yet, sample them all and come up with an opinion that makes sense to you.

 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

15 comments

Chris
Sat Oct 31 2009 19:15
"If you want to talk about bias in the media, fine, but don't just limit it to Fox."

It doesn't appear to me that the point of the article was to discuss all bias in the media. The point of the article was to discuss Fox News. Right now Fox is the network people are talking about, at this point in time they are the ones bashing the Obama administration, (which they are completely within their rights to do) so why should Zach write an article about MSNBC?

Dave
Fri Oct 30 2009 10:26
I had typed out a lenghty response, however the DA website seems to be blocking me from posting to this article at the moment (but if I use a proxy server and another IP address, I can post). Anyhow, I you are right on some points, but the point of the article ignores MSNBC completely, just like the White House does. If you want to talk about bias in the media, fine, but don't just limit it to Fox. Check out CNN's Cambell Brown's interview with Valerie Jarrett.
Dave
Fri Oct 30 2009 10:21
Test post- something is blocking me from posting.
D
Fri Oct 30 2009 10:17
EDITOR: Our comments are unmoderated. I think the size of your reply may have prompted the system to detect spamming. I am looking into this (This is Dave, appears I am either having computer issues or the DA is trying to block me from posting, haha).

"Do you Dave? Then why did you say:

"...The author asserts that MSNBC represents the middle of America. "

If you understand that the author made a distinction between MSNBC and NBC, then how can you also assert that he claims MSNBC respresents middle America?"

Okay, you got me there. The author asserts that NBC, not MSNBC, represents the middle of America. I still disagree with that sentiment. Neither MSNBC nor NBC represents the middle of America.

" For NBC to be as biased as MSNBC, over a shorter time frame, wouldn't NBC's news coverage necessarily be MORE biased, to make up for the limited time in which it must display its content."

No, it can be as biased. Its just a matter that NBC news broadcasts for a short time while MSNBC news is 24/7.

Perhaps the bias is not as easy to notice because it exits in lower quantities? "

Umm, yeah, thats EXACTLY what I was saying. The bias on NBC news only exists 1/2 hour a day. The bias on MSNBC exists 24 hours or so. So obviously, its in lower quantities on NBC simply because they broadcast news for a shorter time period each day!

"Also remember that it is the nature of news oriented programs like NBC's Dateline or CBS's 60 Minutes to focus on investigative journalism, which is almost inherently neagtive(it is hard to fashion a hard-hitting report on a positive subject.). The Bush Administration was in power for 8 years and thus was likely to be the target of investigative reports for that period of time... but in the years preceeding Bush, the Clinton administration was subjected to a number of similar reports. "

I agree... to a point. But to further the point, where has that tough journalism been in regards to Obama? He's had quite few controverseys that the "mainstream" media has largely ignored until they became HUGE- namely Van Jons and ACORN. Why is Glenn Beck the only person doing real investigative journalism on the Obama administration? Where is CBS, ABC, NBC, etc? I can remember many of the broadcast networks being critical of Bush for taking vacations/playing golf while the wars were going on (and I will remind you all that he stopped playing golf out of respect to the troops), but Obama is almost celebrated for doing the same?

"There is a significant difference in declaring that you "disagree" with an authors premise or statement and declaring that particular single statement represents a "Automatic disqualifier of any credibility in the article." "

Saying MSNBC represents the middle of America would be an automatic disqualifer. (I know, he didn't mean that). Saying NBC news represents the middle of America is on the bounds of that, in my opinion.

This article, whether the author is conservative or not, makes a big deal about bias on Fox news but pretty much passes over the same on MSNBC. Same thing the White House does, check this out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/28/campbell-brown-hits-white_n_337889.html

Someone who knows how to read
Thu Oct 29 2009 16:51
"I understand perfectly well what the author was trying to say. I disagree. I do not think that NBC's broadcast news is significantly less biased than MSNBC's news."

Do you Dave? Then why did you say:

"...The author asserts that MSNBC represents the middle of America. "

If you understand that the author made a distinction between MSNBC and NBC, then how can you also assert that he claims MSNBC respresents middle America?

"I do not think that NBC's broadcast news is significantly less biased than MSNBC's news. Its just that MSNBC broadcasts news for many hours a day, while NBC news is only on for 1/2 hour a day, so the bias on NBC may not be as easy to notice. "

For NBC to be as biased as MSNBC, over a shorter time frame, wouldn't NBC's news coverage necessarily be MORE biased, to make up for the limited time in which it must display its content.

Perhaps the bias is not as easy to notice because it exits in lower quantities?

Also remember that it is the nature of news oriented programs like NBC's Dateline or CBS's 60 Minutes to focus on investigative journalism, which is almost inherently neagtive(it is hard to fashion a hard-hitting report on a positive subject.). The Bush Administration was in power for 8 years and thus was likely to be the target of investigative reports for that period of time... but in the years preceeding Bush, the Clinton administration was subjected to a number of similar reports.

All in all, I hardly imagine the author suggesting MSNBC represents middle America. The tenor of his argument even suggests that no media organization can truly represent "middle America". He argues that all media organizations necessarily have some level of bias. Perhaps it is his opinion that CNN and/or NBC (broadcats version) come closest to this middle ground, though they may sway somewhat to (at least in the case of NBC) to the left.

Also a final point of note:

There is a significant difference in declaring that you "disagree" with an authors premise or statement and declaring that particular single statement represents a "Automatic disqualifier of any credibility in the article."

Comments are certainly prone to contain hyperbole, but the latter is pushing the bounds of reasonable discourse.

Dave
Thu Oct 29 2009 08:43
" "The author asserts that MSNBC represents the middle of America"

Incorrect.

Copy and pasted directly from the text above:

"Let CNN or NBC handle that."

NBC=/ MSNBC. "

As far as the news the show on the air, they are the same. Obviously, MSNBC has opinion shows such as Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, Scarborough, etc that NBC does not have, but from a perspective of the news they show on the air, they both air very, very little that is critical of the President and air much that is complimentary to the President, and both tend to air stories that portray the President's critics in a bad light.

"NBC's broadcast news may not be perfectly neutral, but it is much less biased than MSNBCs. The author seems to understand the distinction. Obviously Dave does not. "

I understand perfectly well what the author was trying to say. I disagree. I do not think that NBC's broadcast news is significantly less biased than MSNBC's news. Its just that MSNBC broadcasts news for many hours a day, while NBC news is only on for 1/2 hour a day, so the bias on NBC may not be as easy to notice.

Someone who knows how to read
Thu Oct 29 2009 00:30
"The author asserts that MSNBC represents the middle of America"

Incorrect.

Copy and pasted directly from the text above:

"Let CNN or NBC handle that."

NBC=/ MSNBC.

NBC is a broadcast network. MSNBC is its cable news outlet. The two may be affiliated, but they are not one in the same. FOX the broadcast network also produces news (primarily on a local basis) but there is an obvious distinction between the two channels.

The author obviously understands this distinction:

"...ideological counterparts at MSNBC"

That statement implys that MSNBC is the counterpart to FoxNews. He identifies FoxNews as conservative (he in fact, argues that rather than shy away from this distinction they should embrace it). If MSNBC is their "ideological counterpart" this would logically render them as a liberal organization.

NBC's broadcast news may not be perfectly neutral, but it is much less biased than MSNBCs. The author seems to understand the distinction. Obviously Dave does not.

Dave
Wed Oct 28 2009 22:43
"Translation: "This article lacks credibility because I disagree with it.""

No, the article lacks credibility because:
1. He criticizes Glenn Beck, calling him names, without really saying why he believes Beck is a moron or providing any supporting facts to back that up. It seems that Zach disagrees with Beck, which is fine, but disagreement does not mean Beck is a moron.
2. Automatic disqualifier of any credibility in the article: The author asserts that MSNBC represents the middle of America. That is quite laughable and quite untrue. I don't think you'd find anyone but the leftist of the left that would try to argue that point.

Mr. Kennedy Kennedy
Wed Oct 28 2009 21:41
"It is people like you Zach that make main stream media so bad."

What's wrong with expressing an opinion in an opinion column? It's not like the opinion page is supposed to be unbaised news coverage.

"This school newspaper has a fairly large audience of students and nothing in your article makes much sense."

I'm pretty sure it doesn't. There are a lot of students here, but I've talked to few who read the DA with much regularity, if at all.

"Clearly your views sway to left side of the field and there is nothing wrong with that, except for when you attack others."

Based on most of Zach's other articles, I'd say he's much more conservative than liberal.

"How can you fully credit this article that calls "Glenn Beck a moron" but sticks up for media outlets which show Keith Oolbermann?"

Translation: "This article lacks credibility because I disagree with it."

Nobody
Wed Oct 28 2009 15:44
Let NBC and CNN cover the middle ground in America? HA!
Mick
Wed Oct 28 2009 11:02
Dave's points pretty much wrap up any argument about Fox news or its contributors. The author of this piece should be happy that dave went easy on him. The fact of the matter simple, if you do not like Fox, turn it off, the same way any one can turn off MSNBC or anything else they do not like. What we need are fewer people telling us what we can and can not do and allow us, the Amercian people, to make or own choices, good or bad.
Mark
Wed Oct 28 2009 10:14
It is people like you Zach that make main stream media so bad. This school newspaper has a fairly large audience of students and nothing in your article makes much sense. Clearly your views sway to left side of the field and there is nothing wrong with that, except for when you attack others. How can you fully credit this article that calls "Glenn Beck a moron" but sticks up for media outlets which show Keith Oolbermann?

Answer me this if Glenn Beck is so bad which media outlet employed him first?

Bob
Wed Oct 28 2009 09:15
The best way to understand the facts about the issues is to view as much of both sides arguments as possible. If you like MSNBC and dislike Fox it should be because you have viewed both and become educated to how each side views the facts. The mistrust and suspicion of the media is wide spread but it should not limit you to view only one side. The President is wrong in trying to silence Fox. The fact is that the people have made Glenn Beck one of the most popluar programs on TV. Thus the criticism has backfired.
Ron
Wed Oct 28 2009 08:47
The objective of news networks is to present the facts and not to have a political bias as a whole network. I realize this is not possible, but it is the job of the media to do this. I have no problem with there being a bias by individual people and shows, but they should report the news objectively and without bias whether or not it hurts their "slant" on the matter.
Dave
Wed Oct 28 2009 08:28
"The network has been consistently critical of the Obama administration – this is a significant change compared to the sympathetic tone it took during the Bush administration."

Or has the network merely reported the news stories that other networks, such as MSNBC & CNN, have been unwilling to touch for fear of displeasing the Obama administration? No one seemed to have a problem with MSNBC being consistently critical of Bush or consistently openly cheerleading for Obama.

"That short list covers the major themes present in any indictment of Fox and doesn’t even touch on what is quite possibly the network’s greatest sin – the continued employment of Glenn Beck."

Without Glenn Beck, we would still have Van Jones in the White House, and no one would know about the outrageous actions of ACORN, among other things. No one has yet to challenge Beck on his facts- its all character attacks. Its the classic tactic, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

"Most reputable journalists do their best to suppress their personal biases and opinions."

Less and less any more. And I think you might be confusing Fox "opinion" shows, such as Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, with their news programming.

"But that’s beside the point. Fox News doesn’t need to be the middle ground of American news media.

Let CNN or NBC handle that. Choosing sides doesn’t give them a license to blatantly misrepresent facts or lie."

Possibly the most outrageous statement in the entire article. Do you honestly think NBC represents the middle ground of America? This is the network that has openly cheered for Obama and attacked his critics? The network whose news anchors have attacked people on-air who challenge health care reform at town halls? Really? They represent the middle of America?

"The real crime Fox commits, however, is pretending to be something they are not. But what they are isn’t so bad, at least in theory.

If the network wants to present the news from a conservative position and they find an audience for that viewpoint, go for it."

If they came out and said "we are a Conservative network", they would be killed. And for the matter, NBC/MSNBC presents the news with an obvious liberal bias, but they don't seem to get the criticism Fox gets. Wonder why that is?

"Glenn Beck is a moron who happens to be conservative. But, it’s the first adjective that matters when assessing his value."

Really? What makes him a moron? I could rattle off a list of so many things he has been right about in the past 5 years, even though people called him crazy at the time. Can you give any factual evidence to refute the things on Beck's show that he has stated as fact? Everyone has differing opinions, sure, and you can disagree with someone without calling that person a moron. But without presenting an argument and just resorting to calling names, you are essentially proving yourself to be what you are calling others, and proving that you nave no ground to stand on.

It comes down to this: right now, we have a President who has complete control over one news network (NBC/MSNBC), has the other networks to a point where they are afraid to challenge him (ABC, CBS, CNN), and one news network who are willing to allow stories that are critical of the President (Fox). When Bush was in office, it seems like each network turned into the "we hate Bush show", but no one seemed to care about that. No one seemed to care about the nightly Keith Olbermann rants about Bush being a Nazi/fascist/murderer/etc.

But the right never went after MSNBC/Olbermann with the tenacity that the left is going after Beck & Fox now. Why? I think the right realized that Olbermann was just ranting, no substance just a bunch of hot air, not worth much time or thought. But Beck is onto something. And it has people on the left scared. Why else would they expend so much energy trying to bring him down? If he were just making stuff up, he would be ignored! But he has two things on his side right now: the facts and a big audience. That makes him a big target.

It is deplorable that our President is wasting his time and our time trying to silence the only major outlet his critics have. I believe a Thomas Jefferson quote is appropriate: "When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fear the people, there is liberty." Seems more and more like our government does not fear us but rather they are instilling fear in the people.





log out