Home > Opinion > Peter Roff > Obama's Fox Assault Is a Distraction--And Conservatives Are Falling for It

Obama's Fox Assault Is a Distraction--And Conservatives Are Falling for It

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Fox News quoted statistics from a Pew study to defend their "fair and balanced" tag. Unfortunately, if you actually read the whole study (http://www.journalism.org/node/13436) the conclusion of the independent group is that Fox News is biased to the right just as MSNBC is biased to the left. Interestingly, the networks and CNN were viewed as the most objective of the news networks. My biggest criticism of Fox News is a very selective use of facts to advance an obvious political agenda. I don't believe they do it for idealogical reasons. Their target audience is right wing christian conservatives and human nature is such that people like to watch news that reinforce their view of the world. So it may not be good news but it is good business.

wahoo59 of FL 7:39PM October 25, 2009

At least give us the illusion of not being in a Reich. The truth is that Fox is NOT a rightwing network. The truth is that Fox is the most balanced network and ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN (aka "the alphabet networks") are all leftwing and enthusiastic Obama supporters.

Jables of WA 9:24AM October 25, 2009

The Obama communist white house team is quite expert at distracting the populace on the one hand while the other hand is really the one we should be watching. We should pay little attention to the FOX controversy (distraction) and very close attention to his use of RINOs like Olympia Snowe to get his communist agenda shoved down our throats. Virtually all of his "accomplishments" have been to harm the U.S.A. and our economy. He promised transparency yet everything is being done in closed rooms in the middle of Sunday nights by unelected communists in the white house.

Joe of NM 11:30PM October 23, 2009

While the collective intelligence of the Fox network is suspect, I take my issue with the owner of the network. He has enjoyed tremendous success in Italy by creating a conflict between the Prime-Minister and his network. All the opponent of the prime minister have gravitated towards his network boosting his income and the success of his network. This has worked in Italy and he sees no reason why it cant work in USA and he is recreating the same recipe.
The talking heads at Fox network are just pawns of an astitute Australian who is not particularly fond of USA, just the profit to be had by manupulating the Joe Six-packers. By dividing the US citizens along political lines, the Australian is guaranteed a sizeable demographic which the advertizers notices especially if the want to sell buds; beer and NASCAR go together like a Redneck marrying his cousin.
The problem the Australian should address is how far to go in pursuit of the dollar and how far to go before his Talking Heads words of hate are translated into acts of violence by not so bright of an audience that they cater to.
Fox network has to be held responsible for any acts of violence that they encourage and they should define what motivates them; love of the dollar and their owner or love of their country?

Greg Marshier of MA 6:00PM October 23, 2009

Are we really the morons we appear to be? Hold up a mirror and gaze intently, THINK

Duhhga 7:30PM October 22, 2009

big picture of FL, can you explain how this decision by the Obama administration is "attacking the First Amendment?" (Not trying to cause trouble--I'm really asking).
I'm no attorney, but it would seem to me there's pretty big distinction between an administration's granting news outlets varying levels of access--something that just about every administration in living memory has done--and actively muzzling one or more of those outlets.
Frankly, I'd like to see the President answer some tough questions on Fox News, but as far as I know he is under no obligation, constitutionally, to do so. Fox News may, however, broadcast more or less whatever they like about him. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Todd of PA 4:14PM October 22, 2009

No, this isn't merely an attack on FOX News; Obama is blatantly attacking the First Amendment. Mr Constitutional Lawyer either knows exactly how un-Constitutional this is, or he's completely clueless. Either way, he's scary and dangerous.

big picture of FL 3:47PM October 22, 2009

Rebecca of UT, you're right about free speech; per the constitution it is a right we hold absolutely, and radio stations may give airtime to whomever they please. Whether their corporate owners run afoul of antitrust laws--a question that Marcus Taylor asks obliquely--is another (though related) matter.
The bigger question for Republicans like me is whether outlets like Fox News are good for the promotion of conservatism. You might see them as the only media outlet that tells the truth, but if they are seen as a media wing of the party, and particularly if their programming appears to cater to a particular element of the party, we may well lose vital independent votes.
As an analogue, consider the vice-presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin. Her unimpressive performance and outright anti-intellectualism drove away well-educated otherwise conservative voters in suburban swing districts, like the one where I live in southeastern PA.
If Fox News wants to help conservatives win among swing voters that gave Obama victory in the fall (and that's a lot of people), it needs to foster the perception that it provides legitimate, objective, and well-considered journalism. Its editorial page can and should remain conservative.

Todd of PA 10:22AM October 22, 2009

Marcus Taylor of California needs to take a look at the Bill of Rights with regard to free speech. The government has no business regulating the content of radio programming. Radio stations would have more liberal talk shows if people would listen to them. As for Fox News, his comment about "out-right lies" is an out-right lie itself. If you want to see lies, check out your mainstream media. Dan Rather wasn't a Fox News contributor. With every major news organization in the pocket of the left, Taylor and others like him have a lot of nerve complaining about the only one that, while actually achieving balance in their news reporting, dares to take the other side in its commentary. Again, free speech at work.

Rebecca of UT 8:07AM October 22, 2009

I have watched FOX News when they had just started out. I then watched FOX News as they slowly became bought and paid for by the Republican Party thus becoming an extension of the Republicans. This occurred when the "Fair Doctrine Act" in news was rescinded. When it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. Typically, when an individual or citizens group complained to a station about imbalance, the station would set aside time for an on-air response for the omitted perspective: “Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view,” The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else. Disney-owned KSFO in liberal San Francisco is one such station. Some towns have two.
When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied the two commercial talk stations in his town (Eugene Register-Guard, 6/30/02), he found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.” Observing that Eugene (a generally progressive town) was “fairly representative,” Monks concluded: “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.”
President Obama and his team are correct to point out this fact. The Republicans were in office when they allowed local media to be concentrated in the hands of a few individual corporations by constantly weakening FCC rules, this is their payback for allowing Rupert Murdock a near monopoly in certain markets. "Fairness In Media", from which some of the above information was gleaned from and a substantial number of Americans are not so much upset that FOX News reports almost exclusively "conservative-republican" talking points and views. It's the out-right lies, unscrupulous video editing and mis-information that, in a former era, would have had their license pulled.

Marcus Taylor of CA 9:56PM October 21, 2009