Fox is News, Bad News - Democratic Underground

As someone who believes the producers of Fox News should be behind bars for promoting illegal wars and instigating domestic violence, and as someone who advocates never watching it, I feel compelled to speak up against the notion that Fox News is not a news outlet.

Now, Fox News does little investigative reporting. Mostly it chitters and chatters and re-processes. Nor does it stick with reliable information. It intentionally lies and distorts. It also screams and yells, demonizes and infantilizes. But these behaviors just make Fox News a small-time and untrustworthy news outlet that degrades the content and the form of our public discourse. These are not the reasons being widely offered for the declaration that Fox is not a news outlet at all.

To make that claim, we are being told that Fox News has an agenda and engages in activism. But every news outlet has an agenda, and I would like nothing more than to see the better ones engage in activism. Fox is owned by an international corporation, and generates xenophobic rallies against "socialistic fascism." This raises serious questions of foreign interference in our politics as well as pathetic ironies and sad hilarities. But, the central objection seems to be that Fox News has a right-wing agenda opposed by most Americans. That is true enough, and I almost always oppose Fox's agenda quite passionately. That more majoritarian agendas are not advanced by any major television networks is a severe defect in our system, not evidence of what constitutes real news.

The non-Fox television networks that we do have, with a few satellite, cable, and online exceptions, have agendas that are not terribly far removed from that of Fox. When Fox tells you to go out and rally against healthcare and explains what votes are coming up in Congress, it is doing something MORE democratic than what ABC News does when it reports on Congressional votes after the fact, explains them from the same corporate viewpoint as Fox, and makes clear that citizens are in no way involved in the process.

One of the best summaries of the "Fox is not news" argument is found in Adele Stan's "8 Reasons Fox Is Not a News Organization" on Alternet. This is an intelligent argument from a talented writer on an excellent news site. But it is a news site with an agenda and a great deal of admirable and beneficial advocacy of activism. And I wouldn't want it any other way. Stan writes:

"Setting Fox apart from the two other cable news networks is its ownership by a corporation whose CEO and major shareholder is a mogul with an ideological agenda . . . ."

CNN and MSNBC don't have ideological agendas? Surely that's not seriously what's being claimed here. These news outlets oppose healthcare favored by most Americans, back wars opposed by most Americans, and generally advance a minority corporate agenda on a wide range of issues. MSNBC has begun including a few talking heads who sometimes stray from its overall agenda, but they are distinctly labeled as doing so, whereas most MSNBC reporting advances the same agenda as always, and under the obscuring banner of "objectivity" and the powerful pretense of no point of view at all. Thankfully, Alternet itself has quite a good agenda and provides a far better service to our nation than MSNBC or CNN. The accuracy of its reporting does not seem to be in any way put in doubt by its activism.

"Fox News Channel," Stan writes, "is anything but a news operation." Instead it's "a massive media campaign for the consolidation of wealth through unfettered markets." Of course Fox could be both of those things, but it isn't. It wants the markets very much fettered to the advantage of mega-corporate interests and against the rest of us. That does not, however, prevent its being a news organization, any more than the Nation Magazine's preference for socialistic solutions (a preference I share) prevents it from reporting news.

The "Fox is not news" campaign criticizes Fox for, in Stan's words, "declaring war" on President Obama. But I don't recall Alternet objecting to Keith Olbermann's rants against President Bush on MSNBC. What has happened is not that Fox has ceased to report news. What has happened is that Fox has begun criticizing a president in a way that most of the corporate media refuses to ever criticize any president, and a way that progressive media outlets are happy to criticize only Republican presidents. Now, Alternet has published criticism of Obama, including some written by me. And Fox New's fantastic racist falsehoods are not something I want to see emulated. But the general notion -- which, following the Bush-Cheney years, ought to be absurd on its face -- that a media outlet disqualifies itself by criticizing a president, is as much a function of the partisan loyalties of those diagnosing Fox's status as it is of Fox itself.

Here are excerpts from Stan's eight reasons that Fox News is not news:

"1. Glenn Beck, the community organizer -- No other news operation in memory has ever hired its own community organizer, at least not one tasked with the mission of organizing paranoid people to march through the streets of the nation's capital with signs depicting the president of the United States as a mass murderer."

Huh? Every protest I've ever helped organize in the streets of our nation's capital to depict Bush as a mass murderer has been promoted and energized by Pacifica Radio, Air America Radio, and all sorts of other online and radio news outlets, often including Alternet.

"2. Fox's alliance with the corporate-funded astroturf group Americans for Prosperity -- We've scratched our heads trying to come up with an analogous relationship between a cable news channel and a corporate-funded group that organizes fearful people to disrupt public meetings, but we came up empty."

Fox News has encouraged threats, intimidation, and violence. It may indeed be guilty of crimes, and that should be investigated. It certainly encourages rudeness and incivility on behalf of a murderous agenda. But when Ed Schultz reported on advocates of single-payer healthcare nonviolently and eloquently disrupting a Senate hearing on behalf of a majority of Americans and after having attempted all other approaches, he did so encouragingly -- and many were encouraged to use the same technique. Of course we didn't pay Schultz to do that. We couldn't have afforded to. (Although he was paid a handsome sum when he switched from rightwing to leftwing talk show host.) But the corrupting force that money has on our communications system is obscured rather than revealed when we oppose advocacy journalism too broadly.

"3. On-air fundraising for Republican PACs -- Fox News personalities encourage viewers to contribute money to, and visit the Web sites of, specific Republican-affiliated political action committees. We can't find a single instance of either CNN or MSNBC doing anything of the kind for Democratic causes."

But we CAN find that, and better than that, at good media outlets, and why wouldn't we want good media outlets to continue behaving that way if the current cartel were busted?

"4. Bill O'Reilly, stalker of those whose opinions he doesn't like -- We exhausted all avenues of research trying to find a news show host at another cable news channel who pays his producer to stalk people whose opinions he or she doesn't like."

Yet some of the best video reporting on the Fox- and CNN-promoted nonsense regarding Obama's place of birth, aired on all the channels, was generated by Mike Stark at FireDogLake.com. The best footage of Congress members' opinions on wars and healthcare are produced by roving "stalkers", because the corporate press corps does not ask useful questions. Fox News demonstrates that useful questions could be asked. It would just take an anti-Fox to do it.

"5. Sunday talk-show host who promotes Republican falsehoods."

Promoting falsehoods is, indeed, a serious argument that what is happening is not news. But Republican falsehoods doesn't seem essentially less newsy than the bipartisan falsehoods promoted on every channel (Iran's got nukes, Social Security is broke, Single-payer is unpopular, etc.).

"6. Fox News anchors, show hosts and pundits parrot GOP press releases."

Well, how the heck do you think the New York Times sold us the war on Iraq? This is bad news, not non-news.

"7. Fox News hosts urge viewers to join a particular political group."

Well, shouldn't they? In a nation where we had other media outlets with the same reach promoting other groups, wouldn't this be far preferable to, say, John Stewart promoting cynical scorn for everyone and everything?

"8. Glenn Beck, deranged inventor of paranoid conspiracies."

Yes, falsehoods is definitely to the point. Perhaps Fox News pushes too many falsehoods to count as news. But that's a distinct argument that should be made without all of these partisan, anti-activist encumbrances.

Why? Because it matters. It matters because there is a more destructive force in our communications system than a transparently rightwing buffoons gallery. That destructive force is the persistent myth of "objective" "viewpoint-free" reporting. When the "respectable" news outlets tell us that "objectively" we are going to have to escalate wars in order to be safe, and when they quote two "opposing" experts who both agree with that claim, thereby providing "balance," and they neither scream nor rant nor suggest that we citizens have any role to play, we are persuaded and disempowered.

When Fox News, in contrast, pushes its "fair and balanced" bullshit, we fight back. But the way to fight back is to build truly democratic media that promotes what we believe in without apology, and yet without the dishonesty that has damaged Fox in so many minds. The way to fight Fox is not to suggest that there is something respectable or praiseworthy about the bulk of the infofascistainment found on MSNBC and CNN.

Fox is owned by a nut job. MSNBC is owned by a weapons company. Where are our priorities? Do not support CNN or MSNBC. Support Alternet instead.

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book .

It is not news; it is fiction.

Fiction with an ideological bent.

The original 'We bring good things to life" folks.

GE Mini-gun we bring good things to life! At the Knob Creek Machinegun Shoot. A semiannual event at the Knob Creek Gun Range.

HISTORIC MILITARY ENGINES: COLD WAR TO IRAQI FREEDOM

For all its success, the J47 was inadequate for the planned Century series of fighters, which would fly at more than twice the speed of sound. GE responded to the challenge of powering these aircraft with one of the most important developments for the jet engine, the variable stator of its J79 turbojet engine. The movable stator vanes in the engine helped the compressor cope with the huge internal variations in airflow from takeoff to high supersonic speeds.

More than 17,000 J79s were built over 30 years, powering aircraft such as the F-104 Starfighter and F-4 Phantom II. On the Convair 880 airliner, the CJ805 derivative of the J79 engine marked GE's entry into the civil airline market.

T58
Meanwhile, GE was busy on a "baby gas turbine," the 800-horsepower T58 turboshaft engine. Two T58 turboshaft engines powered a Sikorsky HSS-1F in the U.S.'s first turbine-powered helicopter flight. That engine, which first ran in the 1950s, was the precursor of Lynn's small engine product line. GE turboshaft engines have since evolved to power every medium- to large-sized helicopter in the West, largely through the development of Lynn's phenomenally successful T700/CT7 engine family.

The 1950s and 1960s saw further advances: the J93, the first turbojet engine to operate at three times the speed of sound, powering the USAF experimental XB-70 bomber; and the addition of a fan to the rear of the CJ805 to create the first turbofan engine for commercial service, with application on the Convair 990. Later, a race to power the USAF's C-5 Galaxy cargo plane prompted GE to put a larger fan on the front of an engine. The result: the TF39, the world's first high bypass turbofan engine to enter service, introducing the remarkable fuel efficiency of high-bypass technology.

A major success of the period was the Lynn-manufactured J85 turbojet engine. Contracted by the USAF to build a low-cost air-combat fighter, Northrop built the F-5 Freedom Fighter around the GE J85 engine. The F-5 soon became the standard air defense aircraft for more than 30 nations.

Advances in compressor, combustor and turbine knowledge in the 1960s led to the decision to propose a more compact core engine with a single-stage turbine and only two bearing areas versus three, resulting in the GE F101 engine, selected for the U.S. Air Force's B-1 bomber.

The role of GE military engines continued to grow during the defense buildup of the 1980s. GE's highly reliable F110 engine, based on the F101 design, was selected for the F-16C/D fighter aircraft by the U.S. Air Force in 1984, initiating "The Great Engine War," an intense, competition between GE and rival Pratt & Whitney. The F110 now powers the majority of USAF F-16C/Ds. The F110 also powers F-16s worldwide, having been selected by Israel, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Chile and Oman. In addition, the F110 powers Japan's single-engine F-2 fighter and the U.S. Navy's F-14B/D Super Tomcat fighter. A derivative of the F110, the F118, powers the U.S. Air Force B-2 bomber.

Also in the 1980s, the F404 engine for the F/A-18 Hornet entered production. Today the F404 is the world's most ubiquitous fighter engine, with more than 3,700 powering the aircraft of several military services worldwide, including the F-117 Stealth fighters of the USAF and the F/A-18 Hornet aircraft of the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and several foreign nations. F404 derivatives also power Sweden's JAS 39 Gripen and Singapore's A-4S Super Skyhawk.

Many years of successful GE military engine programs culminated with two recent military conflicts in the Middle East. In 1991, more than half of all the aircraft of the U.S. and other Allied forces in Operation Desert Storm were produced by GE. More than 5,000 GE engines were deployed during Desert Storm, powering fighters, tankers, helicopters, transports, and surveillance aircraft, including F-14s, F-16s, F-5s, F-4s, C-5s, KC-135Rs, F-117A Stealth fighters, F-18s, A-10s, S-3s, and Black Hawk and Apache helicopters, both powered by GE's T700 engine. Despite sharply increased aircraft usage, sand, and severe climate fluctuations, mission readiness rates for GE engines remained extremely high, with many units reporting dispatch reliability rates of more than 99 percent. In 2003 and 2004, GE engines powered more than 80 percent of the Operation Iraqi Freedom coalition aircraft. GE's engines have powered tens of thousands of successful sorties flown by some 450 fighters and close-air support aircraft, 15 bombers, more than 230 tankers and transports, and more than 550 helicopters during this conflict. The engines' dispatch reliability, technological superiority, and high quality have been essential to the overall success of the Operation.

that they allow anti-war, anti-corporate messages, as long as those messages have factual bases.

What's your point?

really made me think; Thank You.

I totally agree, Fox encourages action, something a good citizenry SHOULD be encouraged and instructed in, and educates, although the sick thing is, they provoke and inflame the herd by education which follows a curriculum of disinformation and limbic-system prods dictated by the perverted interests of the Murdoch global empire.

There is no communication without bias, so instead of the falacy that there can be perfectly impartial news, let's slant towards informed understanding of the meaning of consequences, the impacts of our actions on other people, creatures, the planet.

I want news with a slant towards critical thinking <=> responsible action.

Again, very very excellent thinking. KnR :thumbsup:

for you

agree with your comments

Yeesh.

Well it was early in the morning.

Ta.

and even though it seems it would benefit their viewers personally, those viewers go out and protest it or are against it.

It's kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

There are few people in this country that wouldn't benefit from more affordable health care. And I know all those people at the rallies aren't health insurance executives, so what motivates them to spend time and money making signs and attending these events?

Are they all really that stupid? Is their racism so rampant they will do it even though it's bad for them since it allows them an outlet for their hatred?

Are all of them being paid by the insurance companies to be there?

Really, I just don't get it. If people truly are that stupid, they really shouldn't be having children, driving automobiles, or doing anything else that requires responsibility and intelligent thinking. No wonder there seem to be so many knuckle draggers in the world, they reproduce because that's about all they really know how to do, and that only because it comes instinctively!

Fox is a magnet for crazy. It gets all the crazy together in one place; thus you know where it is. You can keep an eye on it. If you smash Fox, the crazy will scatter. Like throwing a big rock into a puddle, all the water splashes out and finds a new low point in which to gather.

tldr: If it wasn't Fox, it would just be somewhere else.
see also: Free Republic. Same arguments apply.

This was murdoch's game from the outset...to create a network that would pump talking points and GOOP noise into public discourse and then hide behind the guise of a "news operation" when they were called on their lies and distortions. For most of their early years they were rather obscure and this allowed them to burrow into the beltway media culture and soon to use their "contacts" and allies in hate radio to push their talking points outside their own little treehouse and into the rest of the corporate media.

Al Franken ripped the "fair and balanced" bullshit off this scam for all to see and in a court of law. Yet the rest of the corporate media ignored this and even ridiculed Al for daring to expose not only faux's game but how others in the corporate media have willingly played along.

The fun will be in how this waste of electrons handles the implosion of their own party...do they continue to encourage the teabaggers and unhinged or will they support the party regulars who are starting to get tired of losing elections "on principal" (JMM pointed this out in yesterday's TPM) and what we're witnessing in the NY-23 race.

The deal now is to isolate faux...let them spew and hate themselves into a corner and to put the spotlight and pressure on those in other news organizations who run with the faux lies and talking points. It's time to put this little treehouse in perspective...it represents a small sliver of the American population and even smaller piece of the electorate.

Honestly, as an independent journalist, I can tell you that all of the networks are the same. Fox may speak about things in a much harsher way, but they are all corporate media who have to answer to advertisers and play newsroom politics. It took an independent journalist to find the scam Roxana Saberi was pulling, yet US media refuses to bring attention to it while it is getting attention in other areas of the world. Freedom of press --- only if you free yourself from mass media.

Many of us have freed ourselves...the benefits of the internet. As you state the corporate media is that...it serves its owners. They aren't interested in journalism unless they can make money from it. Instead they prefer to create infotainment...turning politics into a bloodsport to generate ratings and revenues.

It's their lack of providing real information that has led to the rise of the internet as the spearhead of modern journalism...and where the free press has found a home. For many of us by the time the corporate media gets to a story, we are miles ahead with a lot more facts and information than they could ever provide.

You are spot on about how all the networks are the same and this has been their downfall...why the old models of communications and media are falling. Being independent, while it doesn't bring in the big bucks a corporate media shill can get (another major problem...but for another post) it has put a breath of light and fresh air on the free flow of information, not just in the US but around the world.

Cheers...

Thank you for the welcome! I would rather make little to none and know that I haven't sold my soul to the devil that be dictated what I can and cannot report.

Interestingly enough, the news agencies abroad are much more open to bringing to light certain aspects of journalism that the US isn't. I think because much of our news is driven to create this nationalism that has been manipulated into our culture in such a way that the before or against us mentality has taken control and one is really not encouraged to look at the broader picture, outside of the box.

To be quite honest, publishing has gotten very much the same way as well, which is why I will always support those in journalism and publishing that have believed enough in themselves to create their own place rather than waiting for J-School to place them among their other clones.

A great example was the run-up to the Gulf Oil Wars for Profit. The corporate media saw the coverage as ratings gold...cheering on shock and awe not because it was a great national victory (which it wasn't) but that it meant eyeballs and revenues. They couldn't embed fast enough...and will do it again as long as they see news and infotainment. It's far easier to show bombs blowing up or balloon boys flying than to dig and cover a subject in detail and length. Sadly our society has been dumbed down as to either turn off the news or to carry stories that are cheap to carry and can be manipulated.

I'm also involved with independent media. I got out of the corporate game in the 90s as I saw a lot of what has come to pass and am grateful I made some smart choices and investments that my former corporate bretheren and sisters only dream of. It wasn't easy and I spent many long days and nights with little coming in but kept to my principals and knowledge that my industry was headed into financial ruin, which is what is currently happening. It makes one sleep better at night...and ready to help in the changes that are sure to follow.

Best of luck to you...and keep dreaming and working...you beat them with efficiency and integrity cause the corporates can't match that.

they operate w/i the same system. Both are completely unconstructive, disempowering assertions.

We need to be a little more discriminating about what is what, in order to be forces for a more just world. Blurring real distinctions leads to poor choices.

the problem with the Bush administration was that CNN and MSNBC reported what most comon sense thinking people already knew about Bush.Fox news is whats behind the ignorance and the hate in the right wing party and those that believe in the lies that they spew daily. Eight years of Bush was bad enough...but the right wing and its supporters (voters) seem to want to forget abouth all the damage Bush has done to this country and the world.

At the moment even the NYT keeps running "balanced" articles equating Fox lies w/ accurate reports by others.

Look at the big picture. Faux news is dangerous news because it fills peoples hearts with hatred, lies and ignorance.

I was scanning the TV the other night and caught a portion of Back's show. He was scaring the living hell out of his audiance by showing clips of all these socialists (democrats) in congress.

I am totally against everything he stands for, and yet I could see and feel the immediacy in which the message was being sent, if something is not done, America is falling into socialism and will be destroyed.

Scary stuff indeed and I pray for the safety of our congress people because I just don't know what kind of whack jobs Faux is inspiring out there.

It's not good though. I can tell you that much for damn sure.

They go way over the line.

is not more CNN

It's less CNN and more DU

FOX = Full Of Xcrement

as Beck & Hannity? Because that's the impression I seem to be getting.

my answer is no

i think they probably even do more good than harm

i think Beck and Hannity should be in prison

does that help at all?

is the channel a "news" organization?

THAT is a fine question, but a different one from most of the reasons offered to strip Fox News of its status as news.

I must have missed something. Where did you address this before?

I may be reading something into what the Alternet and other progressives are saying in support of the WH's remarks, but I think the point they were making is not simply that Fox, being ideological is therefore not news, but that Fox has taken ideology to the extent where they are just making up almost all the evidence they claim substantiates their assertions. Talking points lists of fraudulent "news" is given to "reporters" to air daily or be fired.

Numerous former Fox employees have said so.

appear as if they are fair and balanced in their coverage.
I know plenty of people who think cnn and the other network news are credible because of fox.

Basically runs the cops there. So in that country the number one read newspaper is the truth (at least to anyone who reads it) but it's also corrupt. Newspaper ignores the , I guess big, porn industries in that country, but newspaper goes after the small ones as if they are the only ones in the country. Basically it's what Fox News was for 8 years. State run media. Somebody drops the ball they they fabricate a story that Obama excluded them in the rotating interviews.

Al Jazzera is more news than Fox is. And both news organizations are foreign owned. Whats the difference?? They both have an overt agenda compared to a subtle one. Although Fox is more obvious.

So I really can't call it news. or simply News TMZ style ie Fox Gossip Network.

Only watch Keith and Rachel on MSNBC, otherwise TYT and this page is primarily where I get the news.

Most people are quick to castigate Murdoch for Fox--and well they should--however, the brain and black soul behind Fox is Roger Ailes, America's own Herman Goering. Ailes is a master of media manipulation and THE godfather of American-style, flag-waving, cross-carrying fascism and selling it to the American public. Ailes drafted the blueprint for Fox. His ideology is the heart of Fox.

Ailes is THE true Prince of Darkness. Learn it.

Since when?

Just scaremongering, totally bull and generally distorted facts that pass for news.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMNtrHS8Xi0

This "girl" doesn't have a clue about anything what she is saying. I am in another country right now and watching this piece yesterday with some local friends. The guys are in disbelief that this Pravda-news can be shovelled to average Americans.
FOX news makes americans look stupid out there for the rest of the world.

Fox is an organization unfettered by the surly bonds of reality	Xipe Totec	Oct-27-09 07:14 AM	#1
Many people do forget "MSNBC is owned by a weapons company."	unhappycamper	Oct-27-09 07:16 AM	#2
Which makes it even more admirable of those in charge of editorial policy	clear eye	Oct-27-09 11:34 AM	#19
VEry Excellent Essay, and you made some points I hadn't thought of	BlancheSplanchnik	Oct-27-09 07:46 AM	#3
glad my point came through	davidswanson	Oct-27-09 08:11 AM	#5
glad you got through that run on sentence of mine.	BlancheSplanchnik	Oct-27-09 12:47 PM	#22
I'm amazed that "personalities" on Faux News can tell people about something,	AndyA	Oct-27-09 07:54 AM	#4
Ugh, loathsome as it is, there is one good thing about Fox.	Jester Messiah	Oct-27-09 08:35 AM	#6
They're Allowed To Be "News" ByThe Other Corporates	KharmaTrain	Oct-27-09 08:38 AM	#7
Corporate Media is Corporate Media	jensee	Oct-27-09 09:06 AM	#9
Welcome To DU	KharmaTrain	Oct-27-09 09:15 AM	#10
Little to None	jensee	Oct-27-09 09:27 AM	#12
It's Nationalism Wrapped Up In Corporate Clothing...	KharmaTrain	Oct-27-09 09:41 AM	#13
Similar to saying "All elected politicians are the same" simply b/c	clear eye	Oct-27-09 11:44 AM	#20
I agree with you 100%	A wise Man	Oct-27-09 09:19 AM	#11
An excellent, but ambitious agenda.	clear eye	Oct-27-09 11:49 AM	#21
News or not news is just semantics and technicalities to me and is looking at the small picture.	IsItJustMe	Oct-27-09 08:58 AM	#8
It matters because the answer	davidswanson	Oct-27-09 10:07 AM	#16
I said it once, I say it again:	ThatsMyBarack	Oct-27-09 09:43 AM	#14
Sooooooooo...does this author suggest that Keith & Rachel are as worthless	bullwinkle428	Oct-27-09 10:01 AM	#15
you can ask me	davidswanson	Oct-27-09 10:09 AM	#17
If everything a channel promotes is underpinned w/ propagandistic lies,	clear eye	Oct-27-09 11:31 AM	#18
yet again	davidswanson	Oct-27-09 02:32 PM	#23
"yet again"??	clear eye	Oct-27-09 03:16 PM	#24
Fox makes the other propoganda outlets	conscious evolution	Oct-27-09 05:54 PM	#25
Should see what Murdoch does in Australia	PatrynXX	Oct-27-09 06:02 PM	#26
Fox News = Roger Ailes.	Raster	Oct-28-09 10:04 AM	#27
Fox is news?	TheLastMohican	Oct-28-09 10:24 AM	#28