Fox News v. The White House: Richard Albert for the Win
October 21, 2009 · By Jonathan McLeod
Over at Politico, our friend Richard Albert takes it to the Obama administration and their, ahem, illegitimate war on Fox News. Here’s the money line:
Legitimacy is a broad concept that folds within itself dimensions of morality, legality and divinity.
And here’s the clincher:
That Fox News enjoys popular support of such immense breadth and depth suggests that it also enjoys sociological legitimacy- something that the White House risks losing if it retains its antagonistic posture toward Fox News.
I could try to make a supporting argument, but really, y’all should just listen to Richard.
This recent attack by the left on the vocal conscious of the right is only making us stronger especially as we are perceived to be the underdogs.
Fox news will never apologize for being right of center and that’s fine.
However, they also don’t apologize for being an opinion based entertainment format and not a news agency.
This permits them to parade Glen Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, Malkin, Coulter, and other right wing pundits on a constant basis. It also allows their anchors, with the exception of that evil commie Shep Smith to also drop right wing talking points into their news casts.
As long as they only have pundits on only one side of the spectrum, and continue to use the excuse that they are opinion based format, they don’t deserve to be treated as an actual news organization.
I also hold the same opinion of MSNBC for the record.
I agree that FOX and MSNBC are obviously slanted news services, but they are news providers, and that people subscribe to them makes them legitimate. They are providing the news in a context that appeals to a certain element in the population. In an environment of 24hr news services, online news, blogs etc etc etc, something had to change with how news is provided.
The problem, I think, lies in 2 areas. The Media, and the Public.
First, the media have broken away from their role as the reporters of the news, and are shoving their way into the makers of news and a form of Official Opposition to the government and other agencies of authority in any respect. They cloak it in terms that “the public has the right to know” or that there is public interest in these events, but it really comes down to sales and getting the jump on a competitor in an ever faster world of information-dissemination. They need to get it first, make it interesting enough to sell better than their neighbour can.
The second, and I think larger blame, falls on the public. We’ve become a society (by and large) of partisan campers who place expectations on media that they are unwilling (or unable) to provide: complete and accurate truth on an issue/event. As a society, people generally tend to pick a side of the fence, set up their tent and plant their butts on a stool and start shouting “Amen!” and “You Go!” amongst the converted and subscribe to the media conglomerate of their choice who spins the news that suits their sensitivities.
There are few “fighters” in society who put themselves on the front line to push the boundaries of the other side. More often than not, these people are even more decided than the previously mentioned campers, and are seeking to defeat, ridicule and/or defame their opponents. The remaining few are actually interested in real, honest debate and enter into it with an open mind and are willing to be challenged.
These few remaining people, I would argue, are the best and brightest hope for our country and our world. The rest, in having “decided” upon something, have closed themselves off to development and risk stagnation. They’d be better off stepping away from the line and camping with the others except that they wouldn’t get the satisfaction of beating up their opponents as frequently and they do, in some measure, provide some kind of foundation and information that can be used or referenced quickly by those who are interested in legitimate debate.
I think in both cases, (MSNBC, FOX), they only bundle a news cast to compliment their opinion format shows.
At MSNBC, Olberman and Maddow are the main draws. At Fox, it’s clearly Beck and O’Reilly. The key to these stations is to have their talking heads showcase their prepped pundits in a manner fitting the political views of their directors and of course the choir they are preaching to.
I think they simply throw in a watered down newscast simply to fill the gaps between their talking points segments (Isn’t that actually the name of an O’Reilly segment?).
Even when it comes to investigative journalism, it will always have a slant (Griff Jenkins anyone?). So no, I reject the notion that these are actually news organizations in anything other than name.
I also don’t necessarily agree with your statement that the news outlets are legitimized by the fact that people subscribe to them. They are legitimate cable television stations, they are legitimate television programs but you need a bit more balance to be a legitimate news organization. Many people subscribed to propaganda outlets in the past, and yet they were not legitimate news organizations.
CNN for example will lean left but will balance it daily with Lou Dobbs. Hows that for some ballast? He’s practically a birther.
RD, contrary to what you’re saying, I doubt that there are any true “legitimate” news organizations anywhere anymore. They are all influenced one way or another because politics 1) pays really really well, 2) owns a large share in “x” station/newspaper, or 3) is run by sympathizers of one slant or another.
I may from time to time see a legitimate reporter, but I rather doubt the non-partisan integrity of their employers.
So, as such, when I say that subscription lends legitimacy, I use the term legitimacy loosely. However that being said, what constitutes legitimacy in society? Enough people believing in the same thing thus setting the status quo? If that’s the case, popular support is a form of legitimacy, wouldn’t you say?
I think the “legitimacy” question is simple.
Legitimate WHAT? News organization? Absolutely not.
Legitimate entertainment? Sure.
Ask the people who watch each channel whether or not they consider it a legitimate news source. Perception is reality, as they say.
Going by traditional standards, I totally agree with you. However, this appears to be yet one more “traditional” whatever to be thrown to the curb by today’s society.
How is that the money line. The money line is the very next sentence. Apparently you didn’t understand what he was saying.
Geez, Samuel, by “money line” I just meant that it was a great sentence. I apologize if my comment did not adhere to your preferred angle of analysis.