A Critique of FOX "News"

This post is a complete rerun of one I ran earlier this year. Upon reflection, I thought it deserved another posting. I'm not one to toot my own horn (very much), but I thought this one hit the nail squarely on the head. Take that for what you will. . .

Image from source, Media Matters

I pretty much stopped watching FOX "News" in September of last year, after the debut of The Rachel Maddow Show. There is only so much cable news that is healthy to watch, and I already watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann most weekdays. I generally watch those two programs on the DVR, which brings my total to less than two hours, still probably too much.

Since Rachel started, FOX "News," particularly Sean Hannity, have been banished from the home, by edict of The Other Half, who just cannot stomach it. But today, while surfing the internet, I tuned to FOX "News" (since The Other Half is away). It is safe to say that FOX "News" isn't just still rightward leaning. It has gotten more so.

Sites like TV Newser and Johnny Dollar's Place are populated by commenters and posters who will vigorously protest the notion that FOX "News" is right-wing. They'll concede that it is "center-right," but more balanced than MSNBC or CNN. Bull pucky. First of all, every FOX defender I have ever read has been a right-winger. And secondly, I have eyes, ears and a brain.

Today, I caught most of replay episodes of Hannity and The Glenn Beck Show. Every element of both shows, as well as in-house advertising, and the crawls at the bottom of the screen practically scream a partisan bent at you. You could defend FOX's integrity by saying "hey, these two shows are just commentary." But that doesn't explain away the advertising and the crawls. It also doesn't explain away FOX defenders' critiques of MSNBC as leftist because of their two major commentary shows.

Hannity is a subtlety-free zone, with the most ham-handed host on television. Without Alan Colmes (who had at best a 33% "balance" on Hannity & Colmes), Sean Hannity has lost something. Controlling the program solo, Hannity's voice seems to have gone up half an octave, and his narration feels hollow, as though a voice-over artist is just reading what is put before him. I don't for a second believe that anything Hannity says is heartfelt--or even possibly understood--by the host. He seems to be there simply to advance the conservative cause and slam Democrats in any and all situations. Segments like "Liberal Translation" are pointless, and interminable, with a heavy-handed circus music score. Every segment hits like an anvil, with no subtlety or nuance whatsoever. If you aren't already in agreement with Hannity, you are very unlikely to be swayed to his side. Almost unwatchable.

Glenn Beck is very different from Hannity, because the host is so earnest. He's batshit crazy, but he probably really believes every over-the-top thing he says. He's histrionic, he's emotional, he cries. He predicts a financial apocalypse for America. He's scared to death of what liberals and Democrats will do, and yet seems to think they are outnumbered by conservatives, and thus are not a threat. Cognitive dissonance has no problem squaring in Beck's world. That circus music from Hannity would play very well as a soundtrack to the entirety of Beck's show.

But these guys sure are popular! Read the comments to any day's TV Newser ratings list. Every day, you'll see commenters ecstatic that FOX "News" won the night again! Every show on FOX beats every MSNBC and CNN show on the air, most nights. And while MSNBC has the next two highest rated shows, they are irrelevant and "nobody watches them." Still, this irrelevant network requires them to rant and rave daily about Keith Olbermann on Olbermann Watch, and Johnny Dollar's Place. So which is it, irrelevant or dangerous? Once again, cognitive dissonance rules.

I'm not sure why I even follow all of this. Ratings are irrelevant, except as it pertains to the continuation or cancellation of shows we like. They are certainly no measure of quality, or American Idol wouldn't hold the top three prime time spots week after week. No, ratings only measure how many sets of eyeballs are watching, not to how good those shows are. In my opinion, FOX continues to rule the roost, not because all the other networks are liberal, but because only FOX "News" is right-wing biased. I will not concede that all the other networks are left-wing biased, only that they don't tip rightward. MSNBC sure. The rest? A real case has not been made. It is a myth that just won't die. And it is a myth that is generally promoted by people who prefer their news with a heaping helping of right-wing bias.

FOX gives their "base" what they want, and gives them a place to congregate. I know--and I'm sure you do too--people who have FOX "News" running on their televisions at any given hour of the day, as background noise. They talk about the "Democrat Party" and ACORN. You'll hear nearly word-for-word "statements of fact" that you heard Sean Hannity say earlier that week. If you start asking serious questions of a FOX viewer, the foundations of their arguments aren't very steady or solid, in my experience. Throw a nuanced question at them, something a little detailed, and they don't have a substantive memory from FOX to draw upon. I can't count how many times I've been in that situation, and had the person I'm talking to just revert to the same lines over and over, even if they've been thoroughly debunked.

Anyway, that's enough ranting about FOX "News." I don't think I'll repeat this experiment for a while, because I don't expect the situation to change. With the addition of Beck, their lineup is more conservative and wack-a-doodle than ever, and they're not going to mess with success, except maybe to add more like it. How soon will we be seeing a sister network, a FOX Headline "News?" Maybe if the FOX "Business" channel never catches on, they can just turn it into FOX "News" 2!