What Really Separates Fox From The Pack

What Really Separates Fox From The Pack

– By Ed Kociela –

If you don’t comprehend the ideological differences between the various cable news networks you really need to go look up your high school civics teacher and ask for a refresher class. It’s a point, I am pretty sure, such disparate talking heads as Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson would agree on.

But, in the world of newsies and the people who hire them, the differences between the big boys — CNN, MSNBC, and Fox — run far deeper and have much greater import and offer much more to ponder.

We are learning, through the House committee that is investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol by domestic terrorists, that at least two Fox News entertainers — Carlson and his stablemate Sean Hannity, have not only crossed the line from “reportage” to influencer, they have leaped over that wall that is supposed to separate the two.

Carlson and Hannity, you see, had Donald Trump’s ear.

Although not on his staff of paid counselors, they were both in frequent direct contact with the former president offering succor and a healthy dose of cheerleading, especially when it came to spreading The Big Lie.

The thing is, in the world of news reporting that’s a major no-no. Those entrusted to deliver the daily report are forbidden from crossing the line from unbiased reportage to advising strategy and actions. We saw this particularly with the revelation that Hannity was among the semi-sane in the Trump inner circle who advised him to call off the dogs after he unleashed them on the House members as they moved to certify the results of the 2020 election. It has to do with ethics, credibility, honesty — three words that seem of little relevance in the Fox manifesto.

Look, there have been serious breaches by others in the news industry over the years. But, in an effort to clean up their own houses, MSNBC and CNN handed down ample punishments whenever journalistic integrity was compromised.

Brian Williams was suspended by MSNBC for six months without pay and busted down to breaking news reporter status for saying he had come under rocket fire while flying in a U.S. Army helicopter in Iraq. While no rockets hit the aircraft, the helicopter was hit by small arms fire that resulted in the gunners returning fire.

Over at CNN, network executives recently fired Chris Cuomo, the network’s top-rated anchor, when it was learned that he had not only operated as an adviser to his brother, then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who had been accused of sexual harassment, but had also tapped news sources for information regarding the woman who made the claims.

Gone, man. Kicked to the curb and for good reason. You cannot abuse the sacred public trust.

On the Fox side, it all comes down to money.

Roger Ailes was tossed as Fox CEO and Bill O’Reilly, the bloviator supreme for the network, was also shown the door. These were, however, not news-related as both of these guys got the hook for preying on women who worked for the network. It cost O’Reilly $32 million to avoid criminal charges. It isn’t known how much Ailes paid out, but both of these guys brought enough heat that the network’s parent company, 20th Century Fox, booted them in what I suppose was an effort to distance themselves from monetary compensation for the aggrieved.

Journalistic integrity and ethics, meanwhile, continue to take a back seat in the Fox manual. In fact, Fox lawyers defending Carlson and the network in a defamation lawsuit argued in court that “no reasonable viewer” takes Carlson seriously. It is the most honest statement made by anybody ever affiliated with the network.

Look, I will grant you that cable news networks have become more than a little jaundiced, and, I think I must agree with my wife when she says the broadcasters are leaning to the alarmist side of things. I get it. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein only get trotted out when things get truly tangled and a sense of context is vital to the pulse of the nation. Otherwise, we get a lot of hand-wrenching and raised eyebrows from overwrought anchors.

On the whole, we have far too many analysts on the tube and not enough reporters. Even that would be OK if the analysts gave voice to various sides, as we do here at The Independent. But, the deck is fairly stacked in the niche-oriented broadcast world. You know, of course, what to expect. CNN gives you the most objectivity. MSNBC represents the far left. Fox has been taken over by the Trumpists. Your best bet, as far as straight-ahead news, is to dial in the news networks of the old school networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC. Of course, there is also objectivity in the traditional news-gathering organizations like the Associated Press, Reuters, and the BBC, but the public has become too lazy to go there. It takes too much time and the reportage is written in big words, deals in serious issues, and is soaked in context and facts. Their television counterparts are all-too-often pretty boys and striking ladies with gleaming teeth but lacking in perspective and history.

For all of their buff and shine pretensions, the newbie newsies have wrung out the practice of advocacy journalism, developed to preserve the media’s role as public watchdog.

Previously, advocacy journalism was instrumental, indeed, historic.

Edward R. Murrow developed it when he took on Sen. Joseph McCarthy who destroyed countless lives by making unfounded accusations linking many to communism. It was part of the infamous Red Scare, whipped into a frenzy by McCarthy who withered under the whip when confronted by Murrow.

Walter Cronkite, who was once thought of as the most trusted man in America, used advocacy journalism to prove that it was time to pack up and leave Viet Nam because it was a war the United States could not, and subsequently did not, win. He turned public opinion with his reporting from Southeast Asia in 1968.

These endeavors, as always when dealing with advocacy journalism, are tricky. Although the positioning of opinion is transparent, it still requires fair and credible reporting and ethical practices, which is why so many of the “60 Minutes” guerrilla interviews and hidden camera pieces have been, deservedly, criticized by legit purveyors of the news over the years.

One would be hard-pressed to find any credibility or fairness in any of the monologues delivered by Carlson or Hannity. I mean, even with as passionate and intellectually articulate as a Maddow rant can be, it still incorporates elements of fairness, you can be sure she has done her homework, and she doesn’t fall back on partisan talking points. As a matter of disclosure, I can really only take her in small doses, which is more than I can say for Hannity or Carlson.

And, as a further matter of disclosure, I plan on staying away from Fox, because of network reluctance to play by traditional rules of journalism ethics.

Of course, the network could fix that by giving those guys the pink slip.

But, this fox is not about to give up the keys to the chicken coop.

Viewpoints and perspectives expressed throughout The Independent are those of the individual contributors. They do not necessarily reflect those held by the staff of The Independent or our advertising sponsors. Your comments, rebuttals, and contributions are welcome in accordance with our Terms of Service. Please be respectful and abide by our Community Rules. If you have privacy concerns you can view our Privacy Policy here. Thank you! 

Click here to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or a Letter to the Editor