Why don’t honest journalists take on the NYTimes?
Howell Raines asks, “Why don’t honest journalists take on Fox News?”
So asks the man who revived “advocacy journalism” a euphemism for “lets try to editorialize within a news piece”. Howell Raines should feel, in part, responsible for the emergence of Fox News. When readers constantly read pieces that bite at their own political leanings, they are inevitably going to try to find a new source for their daily news. Enter Fox News, an organization that I certainly won’t pretend is “fair and balanced.” Why listen to advocacy in one direction that tells you everything you believe in is stupid, when you can get “advocacy journalism” that supports your President? People who hate Fox should understand their emergence, as well as those of blogs have arisen due to the constant polarization of topics by both the Associated Press and NYTimes. We could sit back and talk about how “dumb” Fox watchers are, how”stupid” Sarah Palin is and pretend Fox is some criminally corrupt organization. Or maybe we could understand basic economics and see Fox’s success has to do with the NYTimes inability and unwillingness to meet the demand of millions of Americans. Attacking Fox is easier than, lets say, arguing the merits of their political positions. OK folks, “advocacy journalism” is not disappearing anytime soon, especially if you are only going to attack the “other news organization” for doing it. When you support “advocacy journalism” in one direction, don’t be pissed it starts emerging from the other side.
I am probably wrong, especially since none of us could possibly have a friend who would dare to watch Fox……Or as Pauline Kael said, “I don’t know how Nixon won, I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”
I love open-mindedness, as long as you agree with me.
Leave a reply to longley Cancel reply
Share this blog
Conspicuous Cynic 
I had a good laugh when Prop 8 passed despite how every single Californian news source pretty much campaigned against it. Maybe Cartman succeeded. New season starts next week, btw.
seriously? im not going to argue that nyt isn’t left leaning, but fox is full on propaganda. hate to be decisive on this one, and to betray my usual diplomatic self, but anyone who thinks the two are equivalent is a fucking idiot.
It’s funny. “Fox News” is the name of the channel, not the name of every single program on the show. Outside of the actual news programs, the others (such as Beck) should be considered equivalent to Op-Ed Columnists as it relates to that field. Or are you going to argue that Maureen Dowd is an objective journalist. In the end, which one is the organization that’s thriving even in this economy, and which is the one that’s being sold off for pennies to a Mexican monopolist? Carlos Slim; even the name sounds shady enough to be a NYT owner 😛
This is why you should come to CA.
Angela, I am sure the Left Coast papers would be even more infuriating as Greg just mentioned…
@CYKJ – you know what else is doing really well in this economy? Avatar. It’s kinda worrisome that you are equating commercial success with journalistic integrity. Also, NYT is in a dying industry, whereas tv news networks are generally doing ok (even *gasp* MSNBC).
And yes, Glenn Beck is an editorialist, but he is appearing on a news channel, and there are no sources on the channel to discredit him. This gets to the question of how responsible are news outlets when it comes to correcting editorials when they present factual inaccuracies. That debate was actually pretty a month ago, when the NYT ran an editorial by Sarah Palin. When’s the last time Fox News gave ANY liberal an uninterrupted soap-box, let alone a crazy fringe liberal? That’s my point. MSNBC, the channel conservatives point to as being crazy left because they hired a lesbian, hosts Pat Buchannan and gives its morning show to Morning Joe. Not arguing that makes NYT or MSNCB unbaises, but Alan Combs is the closest that Fox News gets to a differing point of view.
longley, I take it that you don’t like my lemons to limes(?) comparisons, but let’s not use a complete apples to oranges comparison as though it’s a valid counter point. After all, porn is an always thriving industry, but I didn’t use that as my basis for equating commercial success with journalistic integrity (or as a basis for accurate size representation of women’s ta-tas). However, I will concede that comparisons should be made within the same industries to be more effective. In that regards, Fox News makes more money than CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS news all combined. Likewise, in the dying newspaper industry, the WSJ (the center leaning newspaper that’s far right in comparison to the others) is the only 10-top circulated newspaper in the US that did not lose subscribers last year. Sure, financial success is not indicative of journalistic integrity, but the fact that people are voting with their wallets surely indicate what they regard as the superior sources of information.
Since you admit that Glenn Beck is an editorialist, I’m not sure why you see it as an issue that there’s no one to “discredit” him on his own show (and yes, it’s a show). Does MSNBC have someone correcting every line of stupidity spewed by Keith Olbermann? And really? Hosting Pat Buchannan suddenly gives MSNBC some sort of journalistic credibility? He’s just paraded around as the nut he is. If Tim McVeigh was alive and free, they’d host him all the time and characterize him as the perfect charicacture of the right. Besides, Fox News gives the podium to tons of “crazy fringe liberals”. Michael Moore is a good a gas bag as any, and has appeared to face Hannity. Tickle-Me-Massa was on just a few days ago. Dan “Obama couldn’t sell watermelons” Rather was also on Fox News. The NYT can’t even keep their idiot writers from plagiarizing, never mind keep an objective point of view. No one’s arguing Fox News advocates from the center-right. But you’re right. Anyone who thinks Fox News is equivalent to NYT is a fucking idiot. At least Fox News isn’t hiding behind a farcical wall of moral and ethical superiority.
Your inability to grasp the problems with using financial success, or “voting with [consumer] wallets” as an indication of the worth of a news source, yes even within the same industry, is troubling.
Secondly, regardless of how Fox classifies the Glenn Beck show, the fact that he is on the Fox News Network implies a certain degree of lended credibility. And yes, Fox does have crazy fringe liberals on all the time, to be lambasted by their hosts. I asked about providing an “uninterrupted soapbox.” Did you watch the Massa interview, or are you just referencing it? Beck basically fed him the conservative line, and then when Massa didn’t capitulate, Beck ended the interview with an “i’ve wasted your time.”
Really, I think the biggest problem I have with the conservative media is their misrepresentations. The far left leans, the far right is either making shit up or throwing their weight behind people who are. And I think any reasonable person would have to at least partially agree. Or are you a birther CYKJ?
@Longley, I am a bit surprised by the rhetoric. On my original post I linked to examples of both bias/distortion by both left and right wing media. Everyone knows I view things generally from a right-leaning perspective, but my writing was not an apologetic for FoxNews but has more to do with how the emergence of “advocacy journalism” will result in incaresingly polarized news.
I can definitively say the media’s unwillingness to report the John Edwards scandal until the very last moment is one big example of not leaning, but totally misrepresenting a rather deplorable man. Dan Rather’s own exploits is a perfect example of what you write about “making s*** up”. The list goes on for both sides, I am pointing out this is not a trend unique to Fox in anyway.
You write, “And I think any reasonable person would have to at least partially agree. Or are you a birther CYKJ?” which sounds oddly familiar to the Pauline Kael quote. Look, I ain’t gonna pretend Foxnews is anything great but if you assume that only un-“reasonable” people will watch it, we are back to square one. Unless someone agrees with me they are automatically unreasonable. This is the attitude that many people sense from what they read from liberal-media outlets and thus they respond accordingly. Unless we see the sins of our own sides, this is just an exercise is two myopic sides insisting they see things the reasonable way. I am pretty sure CYKJ is not a birther, though it’d be funny if that ad hominem attack actually turned out to be true.
@CYKJ Foxnews is pretty funny, in that, its pretty bad. O’Reilly doesn’t let anyone speak, thinks he’s right about everything even on non-political stuff (he bashed SNOPES.com that bastard!) and takes the dumbest readers/callers to straw-man. Same thing with Hannity, cept he appears to be a nicer guy in person. Kind of like that guy next door that always invites you to his bbq but also spends every waking moment bashing Democrats. I watch Fox for the sheer entertainment value; its sort of like going to a gun range, defenseless targets are set up and pounded ferociously with no chance to respond.
FoxNews is pretty adamant about its “fair and balanced” views….pretty funny whenever I see that. But while I won’t say its a moral haughtiness that propels such nonsense, I just thing its their way to flash a “S***-eating” grin.
Yea, sorry for the birther comment, moment of weakness below any of us. And by all means, I’m not trying to defend the NYT – I think the decline of the print media is its own doing. I’m just saying if you were making ticks on a wall, its pretty obvious from a “factual” point of view which news source is more absurd by quite a margin.