For Entertainment, Watch Tina Fey (right)
I try not to watch Fox News. First of all it’s not news, it’s entertainment. And certainly not my kind of entertainment, so I avoid it. I tuned back in recently and I’m here to report three new innovation lows at Fox. Fox is proof that doing the wrong thing sometimes gets ratings and money. Clearly, their new innovation initiatives are novel and useful to them, and — harmful to the industry, and harmful to viewers. That’s crap innovation, sad to say.
Readers, this is a political opinion blog piece. And I’m a Progressive/Liberal. However, even if you are on the right side of the political fence you should be concerned about Fox. A propagandized electorate behaves like a swinging pendulum, it will swing your way until the next crisis, and then it will abruptly change direction. Propaganda is dangerous for everybody.
The first low point: Last evening a devastating earthquake hit Haiti. CNN was all over the story, doing almost nothing else. That makes sense, it’s big news. Fox? Fox was airing the Brit Hume Special Report show (without Buddhist bashing Brit) and talking about the health care bill — no stops, no breaks, no interruptions for breaking news. As if there wasn’t enough being said about healthcare right now. Shep Smith (who is a real journalist to be fair) eventually reported on the earthquake, but clearly, news, real news, is not their first priority. Could we simply change the station name to Fox Opinion?
The second low point: The hiring of Sarah Palin says a lot about Fox. She’ll get ratings — it’s just that simple. Never mind that she has nothing to say, knows nothing, and doesn’t read. If her appearance on O’Reilly is any indication, she’s still playing the candidate and not even expressing Opinions about people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It’s hard to imagine Sarah Palin ever saying anything “fair and balanced,” reporting the facts of a well researched story, or even providing meaningful insight on political matters. She’s there for entertainment purposes, for her smile and her sex appeal (such as it is). Personally when I want entertainment I want a professional — Tina Fey!
The third low point: Glen Beck. Once upon a time Glen Beck sounded close to normal. Then he was sort of fringe. Well, he’s sailed far past that marker now. The other evening he was giving an American history lesson, complete with a blackboard and chalk. He cited books and held them lovingly in his hands! If you had the sound turned down you’d think it was a scholarly lecture. With the sound on it was clear that he was giving a highly skewed diatribe on the history of Progressives in the USA, and essentially, blaming them for the demise of the American Way of Life. He made every effort to link the Progressive movement with Fascism, and said that Hitler had borrowed his thinking and ideas from…US Progressives. He cast aspersions at Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, and traced their evil ways all the way to the current president. What’s really sad about this is that if you don’t know history and this is all you’ve heard, boy are you thoroughly propagandized. It’s insidious and Wrong to present this “history lesson” without a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen that say: “watching this program may be dangerous to your mental health.” Or “opinions labeled as facts can kill you”. Glen Beck, once fringe, now officially, a complete, and dangerous, whack job.
Fox News — reaching new lows to make money every day!
4 responses to “Fox News: 3 New Innovation Lows”
Hey Gregg – I just noticed something in the photos you included. When you look at a person’s face, don’t you usually notice that each side is slightly different than the other (ex. Tina Fey)? Maybe I’m mistaken, but Sarah Palin’s face seems to be completely uniform and very practiced. Strange.
I never noticed that but you’re right. Apparently this kind of symmetry is unconsciously “seen” by all of us. Maybe that helps explains her appeal! Thanks for your comment.
Looking at Murdoch’s global business plan and you’ll understand Fox in an entirely new way. Murdoch looks at a market, finds a significantly underserved population, and caters to it. The left in the media significantly underserved the right for decades and Murdoch’s laughing all the way to the bank on the left’s mistake.
But Murdoch does this for every nation so his entries tend to be nation centric. He also has an international entry, Sky News. He’s not going to let Fox go international because he doesn’t want his products cannibalizing each other. So, no real Haiti coverage because that’s Sky News’ patch and Sky News, being further to the left, can’t be meaningfully integrated with Fox.
Yes, the right should be worried about Fox but not for its crassness or for hiring right wing politicians, but because Murdoch’s deliberately gelding it and not letting it seek an international market. Until a competitive news group rises up that can can freely carry the right’s message internationally, the right’s always going to be playing defense on the world’s political stage.
Thanks for your informed and insightful comments. You make some interesting points.
A couple thoughts in response:
I live part of the year in the UK and I get Sky and Fox, on a middle-of-the-road cable package (& CNN Intl, BBC, CNBC). So, not sure where Fox stops internationally — or if it’s truly being gelded. My european friends in France and Italy are well aware of Fox in its US vintage; not sure if they all get the channel. The local paper I read over here, The Independent, carried a story this past week about Murdoch’s family trying to change the course of Fox programming.
Fox has been all over Haiti after the embarrassment of their initial coverage, or lack of it. I’m guessing they don’t want to miss an opportunity to criticize Obama should the US response to the crisis be anything but perfect. Sky UK is all over the story as well. It’s just to big to ignore.
I agree with the analysis in your final paragraph, and, when a “news group” carries a political message, knowingly, deliberately, it’s no longer news, it’s propaganda. News is about facts, not opinions. The so-called Liberal media in the past did have a bias, but it was never anywhere near as flagrant as what Fox does. Let a competitive propaganda/news group go for it, I’m all for free markets, but let’s call a spade, a spade, it’s entertainment/propaganda, not news.
People all over the world have an ear for common sense; the conservative message, well stated without hyperbole, will find its audience and proponents. In the short run Fox’s strategy will get ratings. In the long run, people will see through the hype and vote by changing channels to something a bit closer in reality to their slogan of Fair and Balanced. People really want fair and balanced, it’s a shame they don’t actually do it.