|
|
October 30, 2003
The Fox News Daily Memo: Is the Fix In?According to a former news producer there, The Memo is the daily bible at Fox News, and it tells how stories are to be played. It's management. It's politics. It's fear, he says. Fox has already responded with: discredit the source. Next step?I have argued at PressThink that there is a war—but maybe it’s just a roaring argument—about the terms of legitimacy in broadcast news. Fox is trying to de-legitmate others: CNN, especially, but also ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR. Others are trying to de-legitimate Fox, or would like to see it done. Skirmishes go on almost every day; after all, it is a war of words. Today (Thursday, Oct. 30) there was significant action along the fault. It can be watched over at Romenesko Letters: This is one of those hmmmm moments when very large and complicated arguments about politics, culture and media—including the you’re biased debate—come down to how you read a document. Before today I did not know it existed: The Memo guiding producers and reporters at Fox News. 10/29/2003 4:46:23 PM These are selections from the full text of the letter. Some questions I have about the document and its meaning: If bias is inevitable, is The Memo a legitimate thing? If it’s a legitimate thing, then could it be released, say, on the Fox News site? If The Memo is not the sort of thing you release, should it perhaps be leaked daily, as one Romensko reader, Don Russell of the Philadelphia Daily News, has already pined for? Does the memo represent not the normal healthy bias that’s inevitable—a perspective on the news—but undue “spin,” which is insidious and unfair? But then why shouldn’t there be a memo about perspectives to take seriously, arguments to keep in mind, ways to end things when putting the daily news report together? Is that transparently a bad thing? Or a possibly good thing gone bad? Or always bad? And suppose you wanted the daily mix of news and commentary at a big network to move in the direction you thought right, (or stay with your direction and not lapse back) would a memo like Fox’s be an effective way to do it? How would you do it without such a device? When I learned of The Memo, I wondered if others at Fox would say it works as described. I expected that debate to begin soon, and I expected some dispute immediately from Fox. But maybe not. There’s always “yeah, we have such a memo, and you don’t?” which has worked in the past for Roger Ailes. I was just about to write, “its inconceivable to me that Fox won’t comment. They like a good argument…” when their initial response was posted at Romensko. Among the many rhetorical options Fox News Channel had in front of it, first choice, it appears, is to discredit the source in standard American source-discrediting fashion. Malcontent couldn’t cut it, now wants revenge. Or as Romensko, a talented headline writer, puts it: Fox News veep says Reina is a “disgruntled” ex-employee. 10/30/2003 5:30:53 PM These are snippets of the Fox VP’s letter. And there is bound to be more. If you like tracking press think, then attend closely to which facts—if any—in the Charlie Reina letter are disputed, which are not, how the denials are worded. Equally important is how critics of Fox “read” The Memo, as evidence for… what? About Reina’s letter: if it’s largely true, and its suggestions are on the mark—and I do not know that—it could not be true just for him. That means others might tell of The Memo and how it works. Romenesko already has a Memos section sitting there like a big soft catcher’s mitt. This one bears watching. Update: Salon has an interview with Reina today that includes this anecdote: I came in one morning, and the first thing I saw on the monitor was our anchor doing a story [Trent Lott’s praise of Strom Thurmond]. And it was clear that Fox, through the anchor, was anti-Trent Lott. So I went right to the memo, and sure enough the memo said we should make sure our viewers know that this wasn’t even the first time Lott has made such remarks. And I thought, “Wow, I don’t understand.” So I go to the wires, and sure enough, there it is: Bush has condemned what he had said, and Bush wanted to get rid of Lott as the majority leader. Interesting to me is that Reina agrees that mainstream newsrooms are mostly filled with Democrats and liberals: “Part of what Fox’s message is, and I have to say that to a certain extent I agree with it, is that political correctness is a terrible thing. There are a lot of assumptions that are simply made and not questioned, and a lot of that, liberals like me have perpetrated. And I have to agree that there’s too much of that.” But of course he sees a different form of political correctness operating at Fox. Events of the last few months are putting increased pressure on Fox’s claim to be both the conservative alternative and not only fair and balanced, but without any definable perspective. Many—including me—marvel at this strategy of playing both sides, which I wrote about in more detail here. But there are costs to keeping these two contradictory claims running. The Reina letter shows it. For if Fox News Channel had no problem declaring, “we’re the conservative alternative,” then the Memo would be easier to explain. Lots of other attacks would be voided. Roger Ailes could shift from, “we’re fair and balanced, the real news, you’re just liberal spin” to, “sure, we have a perspective and we’re willing to defend it, you have a perspective and you’re not willing to defend it.” Which is stronger? PressThink’s latest on The Memo (Nov. 1): The Other Bias at Fox News: Volume Andrew Cline of Rhetorica says: “FOX has every right to spin the news any way its owners and editors please.” PressThink: Bill O’Reilly and the Paranoid Style in News. Wall Street Journal, Review and Outlook: “Remember, the people who think this WNET list provides an objective overview of the subject are the same people who can’t keep their brie down when the subject turns to the conservative domination of Fox News or talk radio.” Los Angeles Times: Av Westin, former ABC news executive, now executive director of the National Television Academy: “Nothing about this surprises me. The uniform smirks and body language that are apparent in Fox’s reports throughout the day reflect an operation that is quite tightly controlled. The fact that young and inexperienced producers acquiesce to that control by pulling stories is further evidence that nonjournalistic forces are at work in that newsroom. “Roger runs the place with an iron hand and he was put in place there by Murdoch, who selected him for his politics. In that sense, what’s happened at Fox is a carry-over from all Murdoch’s print publications, where the publisher’s politics and editorial preference is reflected in the news hole to an extent that isn’t true anywhere else in American journalism.” Romenesko’s Letters has new, Saturday material on the Fox memo. Some quite interesting.
Posted by Jay Rosen at October 30, 2003 3:06 PM
Comments
Indeed, they may spin the news any way "they" (meaning, I suppose, Ailes) want. The question remains, though, how much is Fox News living up to, or even trying to live up to, its claim to be "fair and balanced." I think the answer to that is pretty obvious anyway, but it would be nice to see them admitting it in print -- as it would be amusing to see the memos telling, say, CNN staffers to veer as widely to the left as possible. Or CBS's memo to Dan Rather that he inject more rural metaphors into his reports. Heckfire -- there are lots of memos I'd like to see! Posted by: teverett at October 30, 2003 8:52 PM | Permalink Only a fool -- or a well-paid hack like Chris Wallace -- would claim that "Fox" is unbiased. The memo merely confirms what anyone with an ounce of sense who has watched so much as fifteen minutes of "Fox" guessed eons ago. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at October 30, 2003 9:18 PM | Permalink Todd...Jay quotes one line from my entry (and thanks!...always glad to be mentioned). I address the "fair and balanced" motto this way: "I prefer that they be a little more forthcoming about it [their spin, the memo, etc.], but I understand and appreciate the rhetorical effectiveness of "fair and balanced." I don't consider this motto to be an attempt at an accurate reflection of the normal connotations of those words, i.e. I think FOX uses this motto to establish a new position for the concepts of fairness and balance. I think this motto is clearly a political maneuver. The question for me, then, is: Will other news outlets allow FOX to define these important terms? I'm sorry, Jay but there just is no way that Jim is going to be getting memos rolling in to him. It's a sad fact that leaking is prosecuted more zealously by media outlets than anywhere else. (ironic pause) Look at the abuse heaped on Charlie Reina and look at the vicious reaction to Bernard Goldberg. Both cases are quite similar. Although at least Fox has the honesty to react on the record, unlike CBS. I think eventually everyone is going to give up the pretense that one can be completely unbiased or fair. Nearly all outlets started doing this after Adolph Ochs bought the NYT. I wouldn't be sad to see it go, not that blatant bias is a good thing necessarily, but at least it's honest. It would be wonderful if news orgs would be committed to hiring ideologically and racially diverse staff and trying to keep newsroom political discussions to a minimum. We'll see about the memos leaking, Matthew. I don't fully understand why Fox didn't say, "We have a different approach to news. The Memo reminds our people of that. We're building a brand here, and serving a previously neglected audience. That means we need some consistency in across 24 hours. The Memo helps." Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 31, 2003 2:46 AM | Permalink Turner actually had a point. It seems to me that the more you read and experience in the world, the more 'liberal' you will appear. The more you shut yourself into a particular group of people you'll listen to as authority, the more you appear conservative. It's just the definition of the respective words, really. Also, I don't think any news should be going after an audience of one demographic or another. Their time would better be spent going after the news. No wonder I read all my news from a multitude of sources. Posted by: Eli Sarver at October 31, 2003 11:59 AM | Permalink "Where was all the outrage when Turner admitted CNN bias? " You seem to confuse two very different concepts: 1. Conceding one's reporters are generally liberal. 2. Admitting one's reporters allow their political leanings to bias their reporting. These are not one and the same. Posted by: Joe Moreno at October 31, 2003 3:33 PM | Permalink It's possible that "The Memo" is not much different from "The Budget" that is hashed over at daily newsroom meetings around the country. Posted by: Joey at October 31, 2003 8:01 PM | Permalink I'd say the more you see and experience, the less liberal you'll become, unless you're so perfectly insulated in your Upper West Side/Santa Monica world. Or you have a good job with the government. Posted by: Kate at November 1, 2003 10:41 AM | Permalink I suspect nothing gives Roger Ailes more pleasure than to see serious, print-oriented intellectuals and journalists get bent out of shape trying to come up with the perfect analysis of what’s wrong with Fox News, and what it says about the media and the nation’s intellectual shortcomings in general. It’s a news network conceived and run by a political hack. On the other hand, what really bothers the thin-skins at Fox is ridicule. And given a chance, they will do the ridiculous, like trying to convince a court to restrain a publisher. To borrow something Jack Shafer said about Tina Brown, “self-parody appears to be a form of self-realization.” I picked this up from the Center for American Progress’ daily newsletter. You can find Dingell’s entire letter on his web site. Remember, Fox contacted him, then pulled the invitation. MEDIA - FOX RENEGS INVITE: Fox News reneged an invitation to Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) to appear on their morning show after they realized he was going to be critical of former President Ronald Reagan and his conservative policies. Yesterday, Dingell wrote a letter to CBS head Les Moonves yesterday to join "the Rev. Jerry Falwell , Members of Congress and conservative pundits in demanding that CBS ensure that its upcoming two part mini-series 'The Reagans' is an accurate portrayal of the Reagan legacy." The Congressman went on to share his recollections, citing (among others): "$640 Pentagon toilets seats; ketchup as a vegetable; ...firing striking air traffic controllers; Iran-Contra; ...financing an illegal war in Nicaragua; ...a cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein; ...voodoo economics; record budget deficits; double digit unemployment; ...astrologers in the White House; Star Wars; and influence peddling." When Fox invited him to appear, they had only read the first line of his letter and expected him to be critical of the so-called-liberal media. But when producers read the full letter, they realized Dingell was going to be critical of Reagan, and consequently reneged their offer. Posted by: Mark Paul at November 1, 2003 11:06 AM | Permalink speaking of memos from on high, I wonder if there's a full story behind this and if so when it will come out: "I'd say the more you see and experience, the less liberal you'll become, unless you're so perfectly insulated in your Upper West Side/Santa Monica world. Or you have a good job with the government. " I agree in sentiment, but I offer that you may be *perceived* as more liberal. Taran--I work in electronic media and I can't count the nubmer of times that I've disappointed co-workers by not falling into lockstep about welfare reform, the role of government, etc. And what I esp. love is that the surprise they then express when I'm way out in left field about gay marriage, etc. What really gets their collective goats is my rapport with the dispossessed and blue-collar types--gee, can't think why THAT is? Posted by: Kate at November 2, 2003 1:59 PM | Permalink Joey writes: "It's possible that "The Memo" is not much different from "The Budget" that is hashed over at daily newsroom meetings around the country." Exactly. From what I saw of "The Memo" it could be a tout on any daily's budget. Whatever. Fox News repeating the "fair and balanced" mantra is like Shaggy singing "it wasn't me." You know it's bullsh--, they know it's bullsh--, so what exactly is the great revelation here? And why are people making a big deal about ideological slant at a cable television news station when the largest and most influential newspaper in this country does the same thing from the opposite side of the political spectrum? This is all a big, big joke. Posted by: Nikolas Bonopartis at November 2, 2003 4:30 PM | Permalink I think FOX News (Cable TV) was misleading in the following incident: The morning of the big Baghdad hotel bombing last week I happened to be up very early and turned on one of the cable 24-hours news stations (CNBC, I think it was). First reports were coming in, and their report said "Iraqi policemen shot at the bombers' car and kept it from penetrating deeper into the target area." Indeed, the casualties were Iraqi policemen when the car blew up close to them after they stopped it. Later in the day, various other media reported basically the same story, not really mentioning involvement of any US soldiers. That evening, I was channel surfing looking for the baseball game and briefly came across Fox News at the top of the hour. Their teaser said (and I'm paraphrasing on all these quotes) "American soldiers stop bombers' car before it reaches target." The lead-in for the story itself started with "American soldiers and Iraqi policemen . . ." It looked to me as if Fox wanted to put a pro-war spin on the story. (Alternatively, of course, perhaps all the other media suppressed the fact that American soldiers helped the Iraqi policemen.) Posted by: Irv at November 8, 2003 1:06 PM | Permalink |
|
Print
