Fox News Channel

I do not know how to begin writing about Fox News Channel.

There is a wonderful television situation comedy called “Corner Gas” that takes place in the fictional Canadian town of Dog River.  Everyone in Dog River hates the neighboring town, Wullerton (sometimes spelled Woolerton or Wollerton), so much that anytime anyone mentions Wullerton, they all spit in disgust.  The local newspaper prints “SPIT!” after it prints the name “Wullerton”.  THAT’S how many people feel about Fox News Channel.  The name itself is the punchline to an un-stated joke, though many people insist on modifying the name to things like “Faux News Channel”.  I am often amazed at the level of animosity expressed toward Fox News Channel.  People have such strong feelings about Fox News Channel that it is often difficult to have a calm, rational discussion about it.

Fox News Channel is criticized for being hopelessly biased, specifically favoring “the right” or “conservative” or “Republican” ideas and candidates, and especially scorned for its “Fair and Balanced” slogan in the face of this bias.

I am not an expert on broadcast news.  My personal view is that Fox News Channel is indeed horribly biased … but no worse than ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, or the BBC, and probably not as badly biased as  MSNBC.  All these other networks, however, are biased in the opposite direction, favoring “the left” or “liberal” or “Democrat” ideas and candidates.  As far as the claim of being “Fair and Balanced” goes, Fox News Channel generally does a better job of acknowledging opposing views than any of the other networks do, which I would say gives it the claim of being the MOST “fair and balanced”, even if it is not TOTALLY fair and balanced.  The other networks often fail to acknowledge that opposing views even EXIST, and completely fail to report or even mention many news stories.

To repeat, I am NOT claiming that Fox News Channel is unbiased, and I am not claiming that it is “Fair and Balanced”.  I AM claiming that it is no more biased than any other major news network, and probably more “Fair and Balanced”.  If, for some reason, a person only had access to one source of news, I believe that person would have the best chance of gleaning the complicated TRUTH from watching Fox News Channel.  Although Fox News Channel is biased, and may come down on the wrong side of any given issue, they often give you a more complete picture of the news than other major networks, so you can figure it out for yourself.

Given my belief that ALL major news outlets are horribly biased, I find the level of negativity directed at Fox News Channel to be puzzling, troubling, and humorous, all at the same time.  My great fear is that some people truly fail to realize that their favorite news outlet is biased.  One of the most chilling statements I have ever seen on television was ABC journalist Sam Donaldson claiming, with a straight face, that journalists have no power, as they merely report the news.

The truth is far more complicated.  Simply by a glance, or a subtle change in inflection, a journalist can change the way millions of people feel about a subject.  I saw a BBC report during the war in Iraq.  An Iraqi spokesman was claiming the American army had been kept far away, while the journalist stated, “The Americans SAY they have taken the airport,” -- emphasizing the word “say” in a manner that indicated she herself was far from convinced.  The easily-verifiable fact was that the Americans HAD taken the airport, but somehow the journalist presented the entire issue as a matter of conflicting opinions.

One of the most biased things a journalist or news outlet does is deciding -- without consulting you or me -- WHAT topics are to be considered “news”.  These decisions involve making choices that are far from obvious.  Personally, I often disagree with these choices.  There are stories that are extensively covered as “news” that I consider largely insignificant, while some stories that I consider highly important are never mentioned even on the local news, let alone national or world-wide.  Again, the criteria used to decide WHAT constitutes “news” is NOT obvious.  Sometimes, “news” stories seem to be promoting a specific agenda.  Sometimes, “news” stories seem to be attempting to gain or retain viewers, listeners, or readers.  Sometimes, “news” stories seem to be mostly just competing with other “news” organizations.

As is so often the case, a big part of the problem, for both journalists and non-journalists, is that we are unaware of how strongly we are influenced by our own biases and values.  For example, if one hundred journalists were asked to decide which of two stories was more newsworthy, and should be featured prominently in a news broadcast, fifty journalists might choose one of the stories, while fifty chose the other story, and all one hundred might believe that the “correct” choice was obvious.

It is understandable that the fifty who chose the first story are likely to be employed by a news organization that shares their views, just as the fifty that chose the second story are likely to be employed by a news organization that shares THEIR views.  Perhaps they held these views before they became associated with that particular news organization, or perhaps these views were formed as a product of their association with that organization, or perhaps both factors come into play.  Whatever the mechanism, the result is that journalists from both organizations feel that their views are obviously right, while those of the other organization are obviously wrong.

The same is true of consumers of news.  If I tend to believe Fox News gives accurate information about stories that I believe are significant, then I am likely to become a regular viewer.  If I believe MSNBC gives more accurate information about stories that I believe are more significant, then I will probably watch and defend MSNBC.  The frightening, unfortunate thing is that each of us tends to believe we ourselves are clearly “right” about which news source is “biased” and which is “objective”.

It would be interesting -- but probably impossible at this time -- to attempt to run a truly unbiased “news” organization.  One of the obvious problems with such an endeavor is that some people believe that in order to be unbiased, all ideas -- good and bad, right and wrong -- must be treated equally.  THAT’s not “unbiased” -- it’s stupid.  An unbiased news organization should attempt to find the TRUTH among the conflicting ideas.

Every now and then there are clear cases demonstrating the possibility that Fox News Channel is the LEAST biased of any major American news outlet.  Ironically, perhaps, one of these cases was over four years ago, when Hillary Clinton was battling Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.  Nonpartisan sources found Fox News Channel to be the most objective source portraying the contest between the two Democrats.

Then there is the coverage of events in the Middle East since September 11, 2012 (NOT September 11, 2001).  While intelligence analysts and diplomats from the USA and around the world acknowledge that the attacks on US embassies and consulates were apparently pre-planned and NOT motivated by outrage over a youtube video, President Obama and his administration continue to focus their attention on the video, AND on attacking Mitt Romney’s response to the attacks -- and rather than investigate the situation and attempting to find the TRUTH, most American media outlets are simply reporting the version of “truth” portrayed by the Obama administration.  As in other cases, Fox News Channel is reporting both sides -- the administration’s claims, and the opinions of the intelligence community and international diplomats.  They are NOT being totally “balanced”; they are presenting both sides, but attempting to find the truth -- unlike other American news organizations.  I am not claiming that Fox News Channel is necessarily CORRECT, but they ARE giving both sides of the story.

It is often said that there are at least two sides to every story.  That may be true, but it does not mean that all sides are equally plausible, and worthy of the same respect.  A “fair and balanced” approach demands only that all sides be examined for merit.  It does NOT mean that all sides must be found to be WORTHY of merit, or presented as worthy of merit.

Truth is complicated -- and Fox News Channel, while biased, often does a better job of acknowledging that fact than other American news outlets.