Posted on 07/17/2006 9:29:37 AM PDT by weegee
'Ombuddy' talk: Is FoxNews 'ultra' or just 'conservative'?
An interesting discussion broke out among my "ombuddies" yesterday. It stemmed from this inquiry from Renaud Gilbert, ombudsman at Maison de Radio Canada.
Renaud wrote:
We have a reporter who labeled FoxNews as "an ultra-conservative network" in a news bulletin. I had complaints from some people that strongly opposed the use of the word "ULTRA," saying it is a value judgment and not a judgment of fact, and that it has no place in a news bulletin unless it is attributed. Any comments?
The ombuddies, including yours truly, almost unanimously agreed with the complaint saying that "ultra" should not have been used and that it was an unattributed value judgment in describing FoxNews. Here' s a sampling of some of the comments:
I think the complainers have a good point. Ultra is a value judgment. Certainly, Fox is a conservative network, but I am not sure that "ultra" adds much to the label especially in an environment where even the conservatives are beginning to argue about their core beliefs.
Connie Coyne
he Salt Lake Tribune
Ultra is a loaded judgment. FNC's conservative, but "ultra" suggests "extremist," and that seems like a highly questonable label.
David House, reader advocate
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Adding a twist to the discussion was Sharon Burnside, public editor at the Toronto Star, who asked:
I would like to know if our American colleagues would acknowledge there is a spectrum of conservative views, and if so, where would they place FoxNews on that spectrum?
The always thoughtful Manning Pynn, public editor at The Orlando Sentinel, raised the bar with this comment:
As others have suggested, I think "ultra" is a problem, but I'm not sure that "conservative" isn't, too - for a couple of reasons. Both terms, it seems to me, are value judgments on the part of the reporter, unless the person or entity being described has identified himself/herself/itself as such. Then, though, there is the question of what is "conservative" and "liberal". The former used to include small, pay-as-you-go, debt-free government -- and, to the extent it came up, probably not invading states that had not attacked the United States. So, is someone "conservative" or "liberal" merely because he/she/it says so -- and whose is it to make that determination?
The academics then weighed in on the topic. Ed Wasserman, Knight Professor in Journalism Ethics at Washington and Lee University and an associate member of ONO wrote:
Manning has a good point. Perhaps what the reporter is trying to convey has more to do with political alignment than political philosophy. I think, accordingly, it would be accurate to say that FNC's commentary and news have been generally supportive of administration policy. Certainly, if you were a foreign correspondent trying to contextualize for your readers something Fox did -- say, breaking a story embarrassing to the White House -- you would be OK pointing out that FNC has been generally pro-administration. I think that characterization has the advantage of being true and of avoiding the enormous imprecision, as Manning notes, of deciding what's conservative, let alone ultra-convervative (which feels like a pejorative, and to some people could include racial supremacists, tax resisters, etc. etc.)
Finally, this point:
One of Manning's points is that the meaning of "conservative" and "liberal" is now so confused as to be unintelligible. I find both terms useless, until we can identify the defining characteristics of conservatives and liberals. I have talked with highly intelligent friends who use both terms and have asked them to give me definitions. All they have to offer is a list of things each supports/opposes. That is not helpful. Until we can state clearly what we mean by "conservative" or "liberal," I suggest that we bury the terms.
Dr. Louis W. Hodges Knight Professor of Ethics in Journalism, Emeritus Washington and Lee University
What say y'all...
Fine by me. Pro-American and anti-American is much more descriptive of the right and the left nowadays.
I don't have a high opinion of Fox, I consider them to be "news-entertainment", and not particularly conservative.
But this weekend, watching hours of war-coverage, I saw a huge difference. At CNN, it was non-stop apologetics for Hezbollah and Hamas, non-stop demands that Israel pull back. Not from guests, but from the anchors and reporters themselves.
On Fox, the coverage was far more balanced. There was less coverage, actually, but I knew what was happening better by watching Fox than I did watching CNN. So, I still don't like Fox, but it is head and shoulders above CNN unless you like being hectored by some of the dimmest people on the planet. Fox really has no competition at the moment.
Fox isn't even conservative, it just appears that way because all the other "news" channels are rabid Left.
I find usage of the term "ultra" to be a pejorative. In this instance, describing Fox News as "Ultra-conservative" is a pejorative term for liberals, whereas describing CBS as "Ultra-liberal" is a fact.
Ok, that last line was a cheap shot made for the joke, but using "Ultra-liberal" to describe an MSM outlet such as CBS (SeeBS), NBC, ABC, NYTimes, WaPo, LATimes, etc., etc. is as much a pejorative when used by conservatives.
As opposed to the rest of the mass media being DECIDEDLY anti-administration? Was the Cheney shooting incident REALLY a big story? Is Bush's expletive said in conversation with Tony Blair REALLY a big thing? What about AP and CBS's reporting of the hoaxed national guard memo's for a FULL WEEK before addressing the controversy of the fraudulent documents? This is BULLC**P if the editors are not going to similarly label CNN, ABC, CBS, etc liberal and anti-administration.
I think that characterization has the advantage of being true and of avoiding the enormous imprecision, as Manning notes, of deciding what's conservative, let alone ultra-convervative (which feels like a pejorative, and to some people could include racial supremacists, tax resisters, etc. etc.)
There are more prominent racial supremacists on the left than on the right. It is a slur on conservatives. A propaganda effort by the left to silence the conservatives; tar them with a false assertion.
Why does the media have orgasms in support of the Million Man March when the Nation of Islam are supremacists who slur "white devils" and Jews?
Fred Phelps, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, David Duke (ran as a Rat before he ran as an independent and a Republican), Hillary Clinton, and Robert Byrd. All prominent racists who get a pass in the mass media.
And "tax resisters" are "ultra-conservative"? I guess if you seek a REPEAL (through the legislature) of the inheritance tax, that does make you resistent of giving the government THEIR money.
Constitutionalist and Communist.
I agree. It is wrong to label Fox News as ultra-conservative.
These editors would faint if they read the editorials written by bloggers who post to FR.
Fox News is to the right of CNN. But then CNN-US is to the right of CNN-EU.
Hardly makes Fox "conservative".
And I read your editorial about Page-1 consideration.
I saw a copy of Saturday's Sunday edition, not one front page story on the middle-east trouble? The Comical ran some dribble on Hillcroft St. diversity.
Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING
If we think of it as a spectrum, then if you have "ultra-conservatives" shouldn't the term be "infra-liberals"?
I thought the same thing. I watched a lot of CNN because I think they do a better job "covering" international events. The anchor support for Hezbollah and Hamas was, even to me, astounding.
Exactly. Fox has that nut editor of The Nation, Katrina VanDen Huevel, on at least once a week in a panel. When CBS puts Anne Coulter on the Face The Nation panel every Sunday, then we can start talking about balance in another network.
I say the omsbuddies should allow the public to view their mailing list. They don't have to let us post messages, but what's wrong with transparency?
correct FNC has zero competition.
Imagine if they started a GROUND up news service.
IOW do NOT hire any old talent. All new infront AND BEHIND the camera. Nobody from any of the networks, nobody from cnn or pmsnbc. NOBODY from any left wing group or left wing affiliations.
Well I HAVE heard of "infraRED".
InfraReds? That could be the left wing catchall, the way the left calls everyone on the right a "neocon".
Readers: Novak citing Rove as a source not Page One news (A blog about the Houston Chronicle with James Campbell - July 12, 2006)
the story warrants Page One positioning because Novak for the first time publicly is discussing his role in the case.I disagree, but its not the sort of huge misjudgement I'd complain about. That along with this post defending it with the Chronicle's coverage of the matter as a whole is, however, indicative of why the traditional media in this country is the mess that it is.
Here's the story the Chron has given its readers; a group in the administration outed a CIA agent - probably illegally - in retaliation for truth telling and has engaged in a coverup, all as part of a campaign to mislead the country into a war.
Here's what really happened; Wilson's story was dubious at best and didn't support what he was saying publicly. The admistration engaged in normal politics in an effort to get their side out. The original 'leak', to the extend it can even be so described, came over a month before the Novak column to Bob Woodward, probably from Richard Armitage in an effort to defend Colin Powell.
The blockbuster story untold by any media; partisans in the national security establishment have waged a 4 year war against an elected administration because they disagree with its policies largely fought through one-sided leaks to a docile, compliant news media.
Where's the story from the Chronicle that makes clear to readers that Novak and Woodward are both saying the original leak didn't come from Libby, Rove or the White House Mr. Campbell? That the leak came from state over a month before, that it was sourced from an internal DoS reort distributed in the State Department? Where's the agressive investigation by the traditional media that analyzes the court filings and tells readers what bloggers both left and right have figured out; that "UGO", blacked out in the filings, is in all likelihood Richard Armitage?
Where's the story from the Chronicle about judge Walton's ruling giving Libby's defense access to Matt Cooper's drafts of his Time magazine story? You know, the one that explains clearly that 3 counts of the Libby indictment rely heavily on Cooper's version of events and tells readers that the judge says Cooper's testimony 'can't agree' with both versions, and that therefore his drafts are impeachment material?
In the end it doesn't matter much to me anymore even though I'm a Chronicle subscriber. I get about 1% of my news from the Cnronicle, it just isn't a good source for actual, real, hard information. This post justifying a story about the journalist involved in the story as front page material - while the real story goes unreported - is a classic example of why.
My advice is invest heavily in sports coverage and puzzles, because if it gets to the point where I can get better information on sports elsewhere, or my wife is dissatisfied with the crosswords and sudoku, our Chronicle subscription will go bye-bye. We don't buy the Chronicle for "news" because the Chronicle doesn't deliver "news".
Posted by: Dwilkers at July 14, 2006 07:17 AM
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.