Nobody should be surprised to see the nation's esteemed celebrity news media align with Fox News against the White House, although even a cynical observer like me found the unanimity mildly shocking. Don't they remember what journalism is supposed to be?
Supposedly, the press regulates its own behavior; in reality, that's been a joke for two decades. "Claiming the moral authority of a code of professional ethics it idealizes in the abstract but repudiates in practice," I wrote in 2003, "today's Washington press corps has grown as decadent and self-protective as any politician or interest group whose behavior it purports to monitor."
Today, even the fig leaf has been removed. A "journalist," so-called, is anybody paid by a media organization to enact the role on television.
Otherwise, anything goes.
The Obama administration's basic charge against Fox News is undeniably true: The network functions as the propaganda wing of the Republican Party. Fox openly organizes and promotes partisan political events such as April's "Fox News Tea Party." Its coverage of congressional "Town Hall" meetings reflected not a single individual supporting healthcare reform, as documented by Media Matters for America. Not one. Fox portrays every perceived setback for the Obama White House as a "victory" for "Fox Nation."
As necessary, Fox resorts to sheer fiction: Reporting that Glenn Beck's ballyhooed October Tea Party event drew upward of 2 million protesters to Washington. In reality, considerably more fans (102,941) attended the Auburn-Tennessee football game. (Political tip: If you hope to draw big crowds of Southern white men, avoid Saturdays in October.)
The point's neither complex nor subtle. In this country, journalists don't sponsor or participate in partisan political events. Maybe in Venezuela or China, but in the United States, no. Explaining to the New York Times, deputy White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said, "We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional news organization."
Yet neither the Times nor most "mainstream" pundits evaluated the claim on its merits. Most pretended not to grasp the White House's point, and then went straight to the aiding and abetting. Many invoked the ghost of Richard Nixon. Why, to criticize Fox, claimed the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus and Charles Krauthammer, was downright "Nixonian."
NPR's Ken Rudin recalled "what Nixon and Agnew did with their enemies list." So did CNN's Anderson Cooper. Rudin subsequently apologized for the "boneheaded" comparison; Cooper didn't.
Excuse me, but Nixon's enemies list was secret. Journalists and others got subjected to illegal FBI wiretaps, "black bag" break-ins and IRS audits. White House officials even discussed murdering columnist Jack Anderson.
Meanwhile, Nixon's Oval Office tapes are the gift that keeps giving to historians like "Nixonland's" Rick Perlstein. "Bob, PLEASE get me the names of the Jews, you know the big Jewish contributors of the Democrats," Nixon begged aide H.R. Haldeman. "Could we please investigate some of the (bleepbleepers)?"
Now that's what I call an enemies list.
Meanwhile, poor little Fox got criticized publicly. Oh, the horror!
Look, here's the deal. Where Democrats are concerned, journalism's vaunted ethical code quit functioning as anything but camouflage during President Clinton's first term. Out of scores of examples Joe Conason and I documented in "The Hunting of the President," the easiest to explain briefly may be a 1995 ABC "Nightline" broadcast in which a creatively edited video clip was used to insinuate that Hillary Clinton lied about "Whitewater" legal work.
After excising the words "I was what we called the billing attorney" from the first lady's remarks, ABC's Jeff Greenfield suggested that concealing that very fact explained "why the White House was so worried about what was in Vince Foster's office when he killed himself."
The phony quote then showed up everywhere: on CNN, in New York Times editorials, Maureen Dowd's column, etc. William Safire used it to predict Mrs. Clinton's indictment. After all, as Newsweek's Michael Isikoff wrote, "It is Foster's suicide that lends Whitewater its aura of menace."
Ancient history? Maybe so. But there was Jeff Greenfield on CBS News last week (he's worked for everybody), making the obligatory Nixon comparison and assuring Katie Couric that "if Fox is feeling any pain from the White House's stance, it's crying all the way to the bank."
As do they all.
See, while Fox News acolytes remain convinced of "liberal media bias," the reality is that celebrity journalists rarely, if ever, get hurt for abusing Democrats. Mistreat a name-brand Republican, however, and ...
Well, remember "60 Minutes'" Dan Rather?
Democrats complain; Republicans get even.
Hence "mainstream" political journalists, who cower like beaten dogs for fear of ending up on Fox boss (and Nixon alumnus) Roger Ailes' own enemies list, haven't had to fear the Obama White House. Last week's collective cringe makes it abundantly clear how badly they'd like to keep it that way.
© 2009 by Gene Lyons. Distributed by Newspaper Enterprise Assn.
Its personalities may not like him, but President Obama has been very, very good for Fox News: 2009 was the best ratings year yet for the network, which was launched in 1996.
In prime time, Fox averaged 2.187 million total viewers, up 7 percent from last year; its total day numbers are up 13 percent. Meanwhile, its competitors have seen their ratings fall.
It's hard not to attribute the network's recent success to the Democrat in the White House and the party's control of Congress. Bad news for Republicans has generally been good news for Fox, and it's no surprise — anger tends to drive viewers.
The staff and readers of Salon had a big debate over choosing Glenn Beck our "Crazy Person of the Year." As we stated in the introduction to "The Year in Crazy," we disqualified certain media stars -- Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly -- and some GOP leaders -- Sarah Palin and Liz Cheney -- whose crazy behavior was purely opportunistic. We rejected prominent people who had a crazy belief or two -- Whoopi Goldberg casting doubt on the moon landing -- but didn't seem driven by crazy.
Only one man was crazy enough to possibly trick us. Only one man stood on a media platform comparable to O'Reilly's and Limbaugh's, and delivered a crazy shtick that was so over the top that sometimes you'd say: He doesn't believe any of this, right? The tears, the shaking, the hysteria -- it's all an act, right? And sometimes you'd say, "Get the nets, Fox News!"
Yes, that man is Glenn Beck, and we come down on the side of "Get the nets!" An overview of Beck's career shows that his success is equal parts talent, timing, cruelty and crazy.
The man who would be King of the Crazies emerged when nut-job America really needed a leader. Since he started his career as a prank-and-smear shock jock with a bad perm, one who once called a rival DJ's wife on the air live to ask her about her miscarriage, it's clear Beck will do anything for attention. But, somehow, the anything always involves a big helping of crazy.
The kinds of statements and behaviors that got folks on our crazy list -- they're Beck's daily bread. On one recent Monday alone (thanks, Media Matters!) he claimed that on climate change, "America is now an Axis country ... on the wrong side of history" (for the young folks: Nazi Germany was an Axis power); that Democrats will "retain power ... in a way that Americans" won't "recognize" after their policies fail; that he was readying a healthcare exposé for his Monday Fox News show that would be a Van Jones-size coup. (It turned out to be that the husband of a congresswoman who supports healthcare reform went to jail for fraud -- and Beck claims he wrote the Democrats' healthcare reform from jail.) Of course, the Democrats actually don't have a healthcare reform bill (and they should probably collectively go to jail for their failure to produce one by now).
Of course, the mention of Van Jones, the White House green jobs czar toppled by Beck's combination of sensationalistic reporting and bullying (Jones signed a 9/11 Truth petition and flirted with extreme leftism in his youth), is a reminder that crazy has consequences. Beck's crazy has intersected with a broader social paranoia on the right, and it's clearly something to worry about, not merely mock. We also don't want to make light of mental illness, and given Beck's own confessions about his drug addictions and his mother's suicide, it's clear he deserves some sympathy.
But not much. There are great therapists, therapies and even some legal drugs out there that could help Beck, but instead he's chosen to funnel his crazy into stirring dangerous hatreds. Glenn, if you decide you need psychological help, we'll help you get it, but until then all we have for you is this ignoble award, the craziest person in this crazy year of 2009. Congratulations!
The spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought. --P.B. Medawar
So what's next? A series of essays by Sarah Palin about the Large Hadron Collider and the mysteries of dark matter? An MIT lecture series by Rush Limbaugh regarding the thermodynamics of black holes? A Festschrift of Sean Hannity's scholarly articles on plate tectonics and volcano formation? Glenn Beck performing live heart-lung transplants on Fox News?
Everybody understands that these things couldn't happen. That when it comes to serious scientific endeavor, years of study and professional apprenticeship are required. In a word, expertise.
Ex-beauty contestants, drive-time DJs, TV sports announcers, hairstylists, newspaper columnists -- basically anybody whose math skills topped out in the 10th grade -- rarely have anything substantive to add to the sum of technical and scientific knowledge. That's what they most resent about it.
It's not impossible that such persons could educate themselves sufficiently to have an informed opinion, but it's rare. Most of us, most of the time, are like historian and blogger Josh Marshall: "The fact that the vast majority of people with specialized knowledge in the field think there's a problem is good enough for me," he wrote. "I can't be knowledgeable about everything. And I'm comfortable with the modern system in which the opinions of really knowledgeable people with expertise counts more in cases like this than people who know nothing at all."
Unless and until, that is, scientific endeavor impinges upon either A) religious belief, or B) the ability of tycoons to keep making money in precisely the way they or their ancestors have always made their money. Then it's every man and woman a climatologist, and every genuine expert an "elitist" enemy of God and the American way -- creationism with a thermometer.
Charles P. Pierce describes what he calls the "three great premises" of talk-radio populism in his acerbic book "Idiot America":
First Great Premise: Any theory is valid if it moves units ... Second Great Premise: Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough ... Third Great Premise: Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is measured by how fervently they believe it.
So it was after thousands of private e-mails hacked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit in England emerged via the right-wing noise machine into the British and American press. Caught red-handed acting like, well, like professors -- ambitious, idealistic, petty, egotistical, dogged and pedantic -- climate researchers soon got caught up in a media storm rivaling that surrounding golfer Tiger Woods.
Within days, representatives of various Exxon- and Koch Industries-funded propaganda shops like the Heritage Foundation and Competitive Enterprise Institute started braying about "Climate-gate." Fox News headlined "Global Warming's Waterloo." Hannity told viewers, "Now we find out that this institute is hiding from the people of Great Britain and the world that, in fact, climate change is a hoax, something I've been saying for a long time."
Taking time off from her book tour, Sarah Palin wrote a Washington Post piece charging the "e-mails reveal that leading climate 'experts' deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to 'hide the decline' in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals."
Note the scare quotes around "experts." Palin's evidence for this conspiracy? Here's the worst of it: A 10-year-old e-mail from professor Phil Jones to Penn State colleague Michael Mann. You've seen it 10 times on television. "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years ... to hide the decline."
Read it twice. So Jones brags about hiding a decline in global temperatures by "adding in the real temps"? The allegation's nonsensical on its face. If you read the entire message, Jones is talking about plotting a more accurate graph by throwing out inferential evidence from tree ring studies known since the 1960s to be less reliable. There's an elaborate scientific debate about why. Not one reputable scientist who's looked into this matter has judged otherwise. What's crucial to understand is that if Jones were proved to be faking data, his scientific career would end at once, along with that of anybody who helped him.
Scientists can be jerks too. However, the kind of worldwide conspiracy conjured by global climate change deniers like Palin, Hannity and the rest -- that is, as an evidence-free, religio-political cult that's the mirror image of their own movement -- simply can't exist in a scientific context. Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice is vanishing, glaciers melting, sea levels rising, droughts and floods increasing, and the past decade -- according to the World Meteorological Organization -- was the warmest in recorded history.
But hey, look over there: some elitist e-mails!
© 2009 Gene Lyons. Distributed by Newspaper Enterprise Association
Fox News' Gretchen Carlson is not a dumb person -- she just plays one on TV. That's the revelation from "The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart, who devoted almost an entire segment to Carlson Tuesday night.
Like many of her colleagues on Fox, Carlson often plays dumb. In her case, that means looking up words like "ignoramus" and "czar," or at least pretending to in order to score some points against liberals -- and look anti-intellectual in the process.
Turns out, though, that Carlson is actually quite smart. She graduated from Stanford -- with honors, no less -- studied abroad at Oxford and is a classically trained violinist. In other words, she probably already knew exactly what "czar" means.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Gretchen Carlson Dumbs Down | ||||
|
||||
Give Glenn Beck a little credit: Every time you think he can't possibly get any weirder, or go any further over the top, he does. (That's not necessarily a good thing, of course, but still -- the man is apparently capable of more eccentricity than just about anyone else.)
Following up on his big announcement of vague plans that seem to involve maybe, possibly supporting a third party, Beck had a rather interesting idea for his show on Monday: In order to dramatize what he believes is the death of the two major parties, he had people on set building coffins for both of them.
No, seriously.
Video below, via Mediaite.
With the eyes of the chattering class upon Fox News due to the White House's "war" on the network, now is not the time for its employees to be making glaring errors. But that's what's happened in several instances recently, and the channel's been embarrassed by it. So now network executives are cracking down, and according to an internal memo obtained by FishbowlDC, "jobs are on the line."
Perhaps the most embarrassing of the recent errors -- certainly the most high-profile -- was the use of footage from a conservative protest held on the Capitol lawn this September during a story about another protest that took place earlier this month. The clip, which made the November rally appear larger than it really was, aired on Sean Hannity's program, and was caught by "The Daily Show," leading to much mocking from Jon Stewart and an on-air apology from Hannity.
That wasn't the only mistake of that kind, though. A week later, there was another mix-up with old footage used for a new story: This time, it was video of Sarah Palin from the 2008 presidential campaign in a piece about her book tour. Again, the clip used made the crowd appear larger than it was.
Not all of the mistakes have favored the right, though. The network has repeatedly shown the cover of "Going Rouge," a parody of Palin's memoir "Going Rogue," when the actual memoir was the subject of discussion. That, apparently, was the last straw, and the network is going back to basics until it can start getting things right.
From the memo:
We had a mistake on Newsroom today when a wrong book cover went on screen during a guest segment, the kind of thing that can fall through the cracks on any day with any story given the large amount of elements and editorial we run through our broadcasts. Unfortunately, it is the latest in a series of mistakes on FNC in recent months .... Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors. Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the "mistake chain," and those who supervise them. That may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews. So we now face a great opportunity to review and improve on our workflow and quality control efforts. To make the most of that opportunity, effective immediately, Newsroom is going to "zero base" our newscast production. That means we will start by going to air with only the most essential, basic, and manageable elements. To share a key quote from today's meeting: "It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on." We may then build up again slowly as deadlines and workloads allow so that we can be sure we can quality check everything before it makes air, and we never having to explain, retract, qualify or apologize again. Please know that jobs are on the line here. I can not stress that enough.
Out-Foxed
How Rupert's red-state cable channel waved the flag and beat CNN.
By Geraldine Sealey, Salon
Fox News: the inside story
A former Fox producer describes the ways -- both subtle and blunt -- that top executives impose a right-wing ideology on the newsroom.
By Tim Grieve, Salon
The "Dark Genius" of Fox News
Biographer Kerwin Swint explains how news honcho Roger Ailes has pushed the country to the right for the past four decades.
By Vincent Rossmeier, Salon
I watched Fox News for five hours last night
As Obama's victory became undeniable, Brit Hume moved beyond grief and anger with Karl Rove. And Juan Williams justified his existence.
By Andrew O'Hehir, Salon
The real Fox News Democrats
How the "Fair and Balanced" network pits Democrats against their own party.
By Alex Koppelman, Salon
Naked Launch: Prologue
Rupert Murdoch hired Roger Ailes to brainwash America into thinking right-wing ideology is actually the political center. And he did. And, I'm ashamed to tell you, I helped him.
By Dan Cooper
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
The official website for the hit documentary.
The teacher was wrong, but the parents are crazy
What Is It With Fox News and Opinion Polls?
shooting sarah palin
Berlin newspaper erects provocative artwork
Forget Bella. 5 Terrible role models in guy-centric hits.