 |
| Deesillustration.com |
“As audiences come to expect fast-paced, visually exciting programs, they will begin to find issue-oriented public-affairs and news programs dull,” notes Neil Postman in Conscientious Objections:
To compete with entertainment programs, news and public-affairs programs will become more visual and more personality-oriented. As a result, there will be a decline in the public’s capacity to understand and discuss events and issues in a serious
way.1 The effect on political life will be devastating. There will be less emphasis on issues, substance, and ideology, an increase in the importance of image and style. Politicians will have greater concern for moment-to-moment shifts in public opinion, less concern for long-range policies. Unless the used of television for political campaigns is strictly prohibited, elections may be decided by which party spends more on television and media
consultants.2
Bernard Goldberg in his book Bias describes the world of televised news as series of smoke and mirrors:
Most of the time television is nothing more than a diversion – proof, as the old quip goes, that we would rather do anything than talk to each other. We’d also rather watch a bad sitcom than read a good book. Bad sitcoms get millions of viewers; good books get thousands. In an “entertainment culture,” even the news is entertainment. Certainly too much local news has been pure fluff for some time now, with their Ken and Barbie anchors who have nothing intelligent to say but look great while they’re saying it. And because network news is losing viewers every year, executives and producers are trying to figure out ways to hold on to the ones they still have. They think cosmetics will work, so they change the anchor desk or they change the graphics. They the anchor to stand instead of sit. They feature more “news you can
use.” 3 If arrogance were a crime, there wouldn’t be enough jail cells in the entire United States to hold all the people in TV
news.4
“In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States,” writes Mike Gaddy. The case was regarding:
a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto
Corporation,… revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customersotherwise.… Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force [the reporters] to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox’s actions to the FCC, they were both fired. (Project Censored #121997)… FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of
Appeals… [ruled that reporting] the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation.” In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to reporthonestly.5
 |
|
FOX News map with Iraq mislabeled as Egypt |
“A former Fox News
It’s clear that Fox News has become a misleading, partisan outlet. But here’s what the source stresses: Fox News is designed to mislead its viewers and designed to engage in a purely political enterprise.
In 2010, all sorts of evidence tumbled out to confirm that fact, like the recently leaked emails from inside Fox News, in which a top editor instructed his newsroom staffers (not just the opinion show hosts) to slant the news when reporting on key stories such as climate change and health care reform.
Meanwhile, Media Matters revealed that during the 2009-2010 election cycle, dozens of Fox News personalities endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or organizations in more than 600 instances. And in terms of free TV airtime that Fox News handed over to GOP hopefuls, Media Matters calculated the channel essentially donated $55 million worth of airtime to Republican presidential hopefuls last year who also collect Fox News
paychecks.6
Notes Glenn P. Hastedt in American Foreign Policy: Past, Present, and Future
The sources on which the people relied for information about the war [in Iraq] played a major role in explaining [their perception of events]. Fox was the news source for those who had the most misperceptions, while NPR listeners held the fewest misperceptions.
