Searching For Fox “News”

Remember when some folks in the Obama administration tried to accurately describe Fox “News” as “not a news organization”? And remember when there was some tumult over the Obama Treasury Department not wanting Fox “News” to interview pay czar Kenneth Feinberg? And remember when the other legitimate news networks stood up for Fox and said “that’s not gonna fly”?

Well, where is Fox “News” now that the Republican Party is trying to punish CNN and NBC for their sneaky attempt to make Hillary Clinton president by allegedly producing favorable television specials about her?

I typed into Google the words “fox news defends cnn and nbc”and I got 3,300,000 results, none of which led me to a single article or blurb in which Fox executives or reporters told the GOP to back off from boycotting CNN and NBC. Not a word.

What a bunch of ingrates there is at Fox.

In any case, a commenter referenced a Fox “News” Poll and I went there to look. While there, I dared to enter into the site’s search engine the words “Fox News Poll” and I got 275,669 results, including the following:

fox news poll resultsNah, there’s no political agenda at Fox. They’re simply reporting and letting you decide. What was David Axelrod thinking when he said in October of 2009 that, “They’re not really a news station”? Former White’s House communications director, Anita Dunn, must have been out of her mind to say way back then that when President Obama goes on Fox,

he understands he’s not going on it really as a news network at this point. He’s going on to debate the opposition.

Just look at those headlines one can find under “fox news poll.” And look at the lack of headlines when one looks under “fox news defends cnn and nbc.” Those two searches tell you all you need to know about Fox “News.”

1 Comment

  1. Journalism is changing. This is from the Wiki page on the subject:

    In the 1920s, as modern journalism was just taking form, writer Walter Lippmann and American philosopher John Dewey debated over the role of journalism in a democracy. Their differing philosophies still characterize a debate about the role of journalism in society and the nation-state.

    The article goes on to explain the different philosophies of the two men. Lippmann thought the public was ” . . . not smart enough to understand complicated, political issues. furthermore, the public was too consumed with their daily lives to care about complex public policy.” Thus, it was journalism’s role, he thought, to close that gap in a watchdog role. His view was considered elitist. Dewey on the other hand rejected Lippmann’s hierarchal structure of journalism’s function and thought that the mere process of airing all viewpoints would produce the best outcome.

    After thinking about this and considering the issues you raise in this post, Duane, I’m thinking that Dewey was right in his time, but that Lippmann’s view is prevailing in the 21st century. However, so far as I can tell, Lippmann failed to predict that journalism might abandon its objectivity, and would doubtless be horrified at what Fox News has become. What can be done when the watchdog fails his responsibility?

    What caused the change? I submit it is two-fold: the internet and gerrymandered partisanship. The body politic is losing its appetite to work at understanding political issues even as segments of journalism fracture, consolidate and abandon their traditional role as objective mediators. Facilitating this change is society’s obsession with internet and personal distractions. Journalism used to be about information but now for many it seems little more than headlines and google searches. Fox News has abandoned principle for sycophancy and may be the new paradigm. I hope not. Good writing still exists, as in Time Magazine, the Washington Post and some others, but it’s shrinking. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

    Good post but depressing subject.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: