Fox News, which started by filling a legitimate need in American news media for a more conservative viewpoint, has sadly let some of its programs slip into nothing more than a propaganda campaign for Republican candidates and elected leaders. Still, if you want to understand how that was allowed to happen, you need look no further than the behavior of more reputable news agencies.
This morning, the New York Times published a news analysis piece discussing the dismissal of Bill O'Reilly after reports that Fox News had made multiple payouts to woman in order to settle sexual harassment allegations against Mr. O'Reilly. There was nothing wrong with publishing such a piece— Fox News is the most-watched cable news channel in America, and the ousting of one of its star anchors is certainly news-worthy. But as the piece discussed what the implications for Fox News' viewership numbers might be, one sentence in particular caught my eye:
This sentence— and the context surrounding it— serves as a model of what brought Fox News to power in the first place.
It's always been something of a narrative in most American media— whether news or entertainment— that people with conservative values are old, white, stupid, slightly racist and sexist people that live primarily in the south. After President Trump's election, John Oliver of HBO's "Last Week Tonight" satirically celebrated that the electoral win proved that "no grandpa is too old or racist to be elected president." "Look papa," he shouted at the camera with a picture of an older gentlemen next to him, "that could be you!"
Of course, most of the time the message isn't so obviously pushed. It's subtle, like it was in this article. And for its part, Fox News does the same thing more bluntly. Turn on Fox News and see how long you can watch without hearing them deride the "mainstream media"— I bet you won't make it ten minutes— an irony, given that they are the most watched cable news channel in America.
But Americans who vote for Republican candidates aren't quite a stupid as these news media sources suppose. And they were understandably tired of being treated like their views were merely the result of their being too stupid to understand what was best for them. So when Fox News came along, advocating a more conservative view point, of course these people changed the channel. Why wouldn't they?
Thus we get to the paradox here. The fact that we know about these sexual assault payouts by Fox News at all— and they totaled nearly $13 million— was a result of the New York Times' reporting. But the very way that they present their message undermines their essential efforts to educate the American public. In the early days of the Trump campaign, journalists couldn't understand why their reporting wasn't dissuading Trump supporters. Think, for example, of then-candidate Trump's offensive and inaccurate statements claiming that thousands of Muslims were "dancing in the streets" after the September 11th attacks. Every major news outlet in the country ran an article explaining that this wasn't true. But Trump supports weren't dissuaded. They had heard most of these news outlets take subtle, mean-spirited digs at them repeatedly over many years. Now these same organizations were telling Trump supporters that their favorite candidate was lying, and they— understandably— simply dismissed them.
Liberal institutions in the United States are currently engaged in a debate about the merits of avoiding offending others. Terms like "safe spaces," heralded by some, are criticized by others as an effort merely to coddle and protect other's feelings. Regardless of the merits these arguments, it's worth noting that conservatives, in being driven to Fox News, are motivated largely by the same desires. They're tired of participating in a national conversation where small, subtle digs are repeatedly made against them. And understandably so.
 |
| Copyright Fox News |
This morning, the New York Times published a news analysis piece discussing the dismissal of Bill O'Reilly after reports that Fox News had made multiple payouts to woman in order to settle sexual harassment allegations against Mr. O'Reilly. There was nothing wrong with publishing such a piece— Fox News is the most-watched cable news channel in America, and the ousting of one of its star anchors is certainly news-worthy. But as the piece discussed what the implications for Fox News' viewership numbers might be, one sentence in particular caught my eye:
 |
| "Bill O'Reilly's Ouster Will Test Loyalties of Fox Viewers," New York Times |
This sentence— and the context surrounding it— serves as a model of what brought Fox News to power in the first place.
It's always been something of a narrative in most American media— whether news or entertainment— that people with conservative values are old, white, stupid, slightly racist and sexist people that live primarily in the south. After President Trump's election, John Oliver of HBO's "Last Week Tonight" satirically celebrated that the electoral win proved that "no grandpa is too old or racist to be elected president." "Look papa," he shouted at the camera with a picture of an older gentlemen next to him, "that could be you!"
Of course, most of the time the message isn't so obviously pushed. It's subtle, like it was in this article. And for its part, Fox News does the same thing more bluntly. Turn on Fox News and see how long you can watch without hearing them deride the "mainstream media"— I bet you won't make it ten minutes— an irony, given that they are the most watched cable news channel in America.
But Americans who vote for Republican candidates aren't quite a stupid as these news media sources suppose. And they were understandably tired of being treated like their views were merely the result of their being too stupid to understand what was best for them. So when Fox News came along, advocating a more conservative view point, of course these people changed the channel. Why wouldn't they?
Thus we get to the paradox here. The fact that we know about these sexual assault payouts by Fox News at all— and they totaled nearly $13 million— was a result of the New York Times' reporting. But the very way that they present their message undermines their essential efforts to educate the American public. In the early days of the Trump campaign, journalists couldn't understand why their reporting wasn't dissuading Trump supporters. Think, for example, of then-candidate Trump's offensive and inaccurate statements claiming that thousands of Muslims were "dancing in the streets" after the September 11th attacks. Every major news outlet in the country ran an article explaining that this wasn't true. But Trump supports weren't dissuaded. They had heard most of these news outlets take subtle, mean-spirited digs at them repeatedly over many years. Now these same organizations were telling Trump supporters that their favorite candidate was lying, and they— understandably— simply dismissed them.
Liberal institutions in the United States are currently engaged in a debate about the merits of avoiding offending others. Terms like "safe spaces," heralded by some, are criticized by others as an effort merely to coddle and protect other's feelings. Regardless of the merits these arguments, it's worth noting that conservatives, in being driven to Fox News, are motivated largely by the same desires. They're tired of participating in a national conversation where small, subtle digs are repeatedly made against them. And understandably so.
Comments
Post a Comment