Sarah Palin and Fox News
Posted By Marc on January 12, 2010
CBC just carried a story that Sarah Palin will be joining Fox News as a commentator. I think that her comment that
It’s wonderful to be part of a place that so values fair and balanced news.
just about says it all. Needless to say, I will continue my personal classification of Fox News as an amusing, in a darkly twisted sense, source of data about cultural inanity.
Marc on 
Pascale Siegel on 
JWC on 
Daniel Gallant on 
MM on
I don’t know if I would ever call Fox News a source of data, but it certainly is a brilliant case study in cultural inanity.
Marc,
Agree. I would just add that I don’t understand why FOX takes so much more heat on this issue than the other channels. The nearest thing that America has to an unbiased televised news program is the PBS News Hour (formerly known as the News Hour with Jim Lehrer). While I know people who watch it, most of them are retirees. Objectivity is boring to the current target demographic.
Generally, people who watch cable news are not really looking for news. They are looking for an echo chamber to relax in, where they will not hear views that challenge their biases and force them to do something unpleasant – like thinking. FOX fits that bill for some people. CNN and MSNBC work for others. The difference, as I see it, is that CNN “was here first” and now people are upset that FOX is doing what CNN did unchallenged for so many years.
As for me, I pawned my TV in December 2002 because 1) I was sick of 24/7 coverage of things are not newsworthy and 2) I was deploying to Iraq and wanted to not leave behind a bunch of heavy, bulky stuff for someone else to deal with if I were killed. I haven’t owned a TV since then and don’t miss owning one. I catch occasional snippets while at other peoples’ homes or in airports or waiting rooms. It amazes me that anybody can stand to watch any of this crap on any of those channels. The first time that I saw Keith Olbermann, I thought he was a comedian copying the style of Steven Colbert. In 2007, there was a TV in our JOC in Iraq and that was the first time that I had seen a lot of cable news in several years (it was broadcast via AFN, which provides an even mix of each cable news channel). It was draw-dropping to see how selective, biased, misleading, and incoherent most the reports were from all of the cable news channels.
Hi Schmedlap,
You know, you hit it on the head when you said that
That, however, doesn’t really deal with the problem raised by such a situation and the effects it can have on a democratic society. And, BTW, you certainly aren’t the only person i know who has gotten rid of their TV
Not sure which situation you have in mind (the Palin hire or the general desire of people to live in echo chambers), or which problems you have in mind for either, but hope that you expand upon it. You tend to have far more developed views on things that most of us overlook or don’t consider. Agree or disagree it’s always enjoyable to read.
Just noticed that I typed “draw-dropping” in my prior comment – wt?
More the “echo chamber” effect than the Palin hire per se. Hmmm, okay here goes on the expansion…
Democracies of pretty much any form require that a) those who have the franchise inform themselves on the issues and b) actually exercise their franchise. Part of the act of exercising the franchise goes well beyond the mere act of casting a ballot and into the realm of actively engaging with the issues. Since the 17th-18th century or so, the Press (loosely construed) has played a major role in both encouraging such a debate, as well as reporting on both those debates and the figures involved. When the press is no longer able to act as “reporters” on the debates and, instead, become actively biased in a partisan (as opposed to ideological) manner, then they have lost their purpose.
Now, I’m splitting out “partisan” from “ideological” for one simple reason: everyone has certain ideological biases which are almost impossible to overcome. I have no problem with the existence, within the press, of ideological biases as long as they are stated. What I have a problem with is a partisan bias, and the main reason I have that as a problem is because, almost by definition, political parties will not only skew the data they present during a debate (which is to be expected) they will purposefully leave out information in order to achieve political power.
Where the echo chamber effect comes in with a partisan press is in reinforcing partisan blindness in the electorate such that they are no longer able to meet their obligations as a member of that electorate. Put somewhat poetically, the partisan press is the crack cocaine of the electorate (with no apologies to Karl Marx [or any of his brothers
]). In effect, converting a “free”, which should mean “partisan independent”, press into a partisan press is destroying the social basis on which any democracy rests; the free and intelligent debate on issues of the day.
It seems that news is undergoing a blurring of the lines similar to modern warfare. People express frustration that our enemies do not wear uniforms, do not pledge allegiance to a state whom we can declare war against, do not “fight fair” and so on. Likewise, the Press is difficult to identify. Who is the Press? Some guy has a backdrop that looks like a news set, so why can’t we trust him? These people say they are a news channel, but their information is highly spun – no fair! These people pretend to be objective, but they have obvious partisan motivations and, indeed, partisan bosses.
“Traditional” outlets for news certainly serve a few similar functions to a free press (disseminating information in a news-like format), but so do the National Enquirer, TMZ, various highly partisan blogs, Matt Drudge, and others. The only way that I can see that cable news channels differ from the National Enquirer is that they do a better job of convincing people that they are legitimate news (and they tend to be a little slower on certain stories). This can be as frustrating as the concept of “lawfare.” Rather than our enemies artfully using our laws as their defense, our politicians use our pseudo-news outlets to defend their actions.
I do agree that the echo chamber is damaging for the reasons that you cite. My only point of contention is that so many people suggest that FOX is the only culprit (or, if they do not explicitly suggest this, their silence regarding the other networks is deafening). Just to be clear – that is not a snide swipe at this blog post. Today’s news is Palin, so your dig at FOX is appropriate, imo. But if tomorrow CNN hires some political celebrity to join it’s newscast, and the new hire makes a similar comment about CNN’s dedication to objectivity, then I doubt that you will read or hear nearly as many snide remarks as Palin’s hiring has earned.
Sorry, missed this one….
Totally agree – Fox certainly isn’t the only culprit. You know, I suspect this is why such a large number of people under 35 get their “news” from the Daily Show”; at least the bias is open and upfront, and we are all assured that we can laugh during it!
Fox is only fair and balanced, if you consider them as a foil to the insanely left-wing CNN. CNN International, for instance runs eco-terrorism propaganda training broadcasts 24/7, only occasionally interrupting it with so-called “news”.
The big-three broadcasters are a reflection of the left-wing base from which they draw.
But still, Fox News draws all the attention.
Focusing attention on Sarah Palin’s hiring is interesting, esp. considering Al Sharpton has been a commentator for years, now.