Menand's statement, "...cable news, in short, is a sandbox. People throw things at one another, not just for fun but for profit," got me thinking. Is the drama factor of two opposing (in this case political) viewpoints dishing it out at one another on national television overtaking the meaning of honest journalism? Is cable news too sensationalized? Have these journalists lost sight of what their role is? It could be argued cable news requires its news teams to cover issues and topics in a different way than in traditional news outlets. On the other hand, it can be argued cable news should still be sticking to the methods of traditional journalism. Despite what your opinion or mine is, one thing is clear: whatever the Fox News Channel is doing, it's working.
The author reports in 2008, half the people who watched the Fox News Channel were over sixty-three. This makes it the oldest demographic in the cable-news business. Since Barack Obama took office, the channel's ratings continue to do well as the news network has taken an anti-Administration stance. Menand writes the current administration's decision to "declare war" on Fox News should only help the channel's ratings.
Menand raises the question, "are Presidential wars against the press always futile and self-defeating?" President Lyndon Johnson attempted to make friends with the press, which proved unsuccessful. President Richard Nixon took the opposite approach but still managed to get reelected. Obama's spokespersons have been giving Fox News a substantial amount of material to work with, which Menand feels has contributed to the network's success.
Menand does not deny the Fox News Channel has a certain agenda; it is a politically biased organization. Roger Ailes (under supervision of Rupert Murdoch) launched the network in 1996. He had previously worked with President Nixon to shape his "newer" image. Since Nixon's time, though, Menand argues news professionals like Ailes no longer hold the power to completely sway public opinion based on a newscast. He writes, "although political reporting today is both softer and more critical, it has less effect on how the public regards the President than it did back in the days of balanced disinterestedness."
The writer adds some interesting statistics worth noting. In a recent Pew survey, he writes, public belief in the accuracy of news stories is at a twenty-year low. Twenty-nine percent of Americans think news outlets have correct facts; sixty-three percent think they do not; sixty percent believe that reporting is politically biased. These are some eye-opening statistics to take into consideration. Menand believes, "...in a climate which bias is increasingly taken for granted, cable channels have every incentive to enhance their appeal to their core constituencies." Translation: Fox News is doing everything it can to maintain and add to its large right-wing viewer base.
As a young journalist, this makes me wonder how far an individual or group, such as the Obama administration, and how far a news outlet, such as Fox News, should go before enough is enough. To this, Louis Menand says, "...the state may, and should, rebut opinions that it finds obnoxious, but it should not single out speakers for the purpose of intimidating them. At the end of the day, you do not want your opponents to be able to say they could not be heard. It may be exasperating, but that is what the First Amendment is all about." So, for now, it looks as though the "battle" between the two opposing political sides will continue...all in the name of journalism, of course.
No comments:
Post a Comment