Dead Tree Alert: Is Fox News a Lame Duck?

Careful James, or Bill O'Reilly will be calling you a pinhead coward who works for the liberal mainstream media over at the Communist News Network. He is powerful. People listen to him. The mere mention of your name by him can make all sorts of bad things happen. Hmmmm, is his middle name Jacob? Is there a purple haze surrounding the building housing Fox News?

And if Bill doesn't get you, Sean Hannity will do several weeks of video on things your minister has said over the past 20 years.

Boy, you've really stepped in it this time!

O'Reilly gives lots of air-time to liberals. That's what makes his show interesting. It's much more fair and balanced than COUNTDOWN's echo chamber. Does Olbermann ever invite anyone on his show who disagrees with him?

I've only seen O'Reilly a handful of times ever (and not my choice when I did) because it makes me physically ill to listen to the dude. Over the years, I have also seen various clips from the show periodically through other medium (youtube, daily show, clips embedded in blogs etc). From what I've seen, he brings on people who disagree with him, then proceeds to interrupt, abuse, insult, accuse, and rant without letting them get a word in edgewise. I've never seen him behave reasonably or fairly in an interview segment with someone he disagrees with (again, don't watch regularly, so I'm not necessarily saying it hasn't EVER happened).

I'm not crazy about Olbermann either (smug, sanctimonious people tend to irritate me in general, regardless of whether I agree with what they're saying), but the dude seems a lot more reasonable than O'Reilly.

I think that FOX news will have probably have plenty of fodder to continue on its same course no matter what happens politically - if republicans are in office, the talking heads can try to crush any opposition to what they are doing. If Democrats are in office, they can spend their time insulting everything they do. I think it's probably as simple as that, if the current tone of discourse in the country doesn't change.

The problem they will have is if the discussion of the issues in this country take a more reasoned, responsible, informed tone - based on their response to Obama's Big Race Speech, I think that is where it is gonna fall short, and where a lot of its viewers might have an easier time seeing through the doublespeak. It would be really interesting to watch it try to either adapt or become more entrenched in its old ways.

My personal view is that FOX News is the most terrifyingly Orwellian thing currently around. FOX news definitely has a niche - it does present itself as "standing up for its viewers against the smug, mainstream media elites", which does deeply resonate with lots of folks. I just feel like it is so disingenuous, though - I think what people need an alternative to is constant corporate-influenced news media in general - media that isn't afraid to stand up to the status quo, media that takes a critical look at politics, economics, news, and culture without viewing those things through corporate-friendly lenses. And that is what it is pretending to be, but FOX news is really little more than a conservative mouthpiece, upholding and promoting big business interests (as do many other less obnoxious, mainstream networks).

@CMR: I agree with you about O'Reilly and have written this before about Fox News generally: say what you want about their hosts, the general tone of the network, what have you, they're often more likely to have farther-left points of view than CNN and MSNBC. (For instance, in the run-up to the Iraq War, they seemed to give more airtime--not that I put a stopwatch on it--to hardcore antiwar groups like ANSWER.)

Now the reasons for this probably vary from show to show. On their straight-news shows, like Shepard Smith's, I think there's just a sensibility that the more clashing the viewpoints are, the more exciting and engaging the news is, and that's a good thing, IMHO. On other shows--I'm thinking of Hannity recently having a guy from the New Black Panther Party on to defend Obama--it seems more a strategy to make the left seems as nuts as possible. But Fox's shows are not monolithic.

@Shara: You make one point that I wished I could have given more space to in my column. The reason I made the MSNBC comparison is, the issue for Fox is not just how many viewers it keeps. It's also whether it can keep its buzz and its handle on the zeitgeist. Now, I know those are really nebulous things (and they can basically stand in for "how much attention does the rest of the media pay to Fox") but they're important in terms of influence. They affect the extent to which Fox (or MSNBC, or whoever) can drive the coverage in the REST of the news media. And in that sense I'm not sure Fox has as much pull now as it did, say, at the beginning of the Iraq War.

I'm no Fox News booster, but I'd be surprised if the network's overall ratings actually tanked any time soon; or, if they do, that said tankage would directly benefit CNN, MSNBC, etc. It's always seemed to me that the Fox brand -- "Fair And Balanced" being code for "The Only Conservative-Leaning Cable News Network On Television" -- attracts a unified viewing pool as opposed to the more diffuse buckets of moderate and liberal viewers who want, you know, actual news coverage and cherry-pick their individual networks of choice from the numerous non-Fox alternatives.

The changing political winds may put a different party in the White House*, but if 49 percent of viewers aren't enough to make McCain President, they're more than enough to keep Fox News firmly at number one.

*Yay.

Here is my serious observation. Hard news, real news, like what is being done to extract miners from a mine cave in are virually indistinguishable (sp) from one cable news network to the other on the facts. To me, that is what real news is. Since real news that pertains to everyone nationally is few and far between, the networks have to provide entertaining news related stuff to pay the bills. That is what gets you the springer type "hard hitting analysis" programming that is flavored conservative or liberal.

That isn't news, it is entertainment on networks originally tasked to provide news. See the thread from earlier in the week concerning non-history material on the History Channel for comparison.

The sad thing is that people watch the entertainment programming to form their opinions on both sides.

@CMR: Similar to James's point, the few times I've seen Fox News with a liberal guest, that guest was a kind of wilting lily who didn't really make strong or clear arguments for the liberal cause. They put "liberals" on for the sake of argument, but it's usually someone that no one will pay attention to.

@Keith: True, and demonstrably viewers don't come to Fox for breaking news. When there's a big news story (a short-term one like a disaster, or a longer-term one like an exciting primary), CNN's ratings surge in a way that Fox's do not. But Fox viewers DO come to it for other stuff, and so its shows have a much higher baseline audience, who watch even on slow news days.

@Lulu: I always get a kick out of Hannity's yes or no questions to people he disagrees with.

Sean: Did you shoot the person?. Well.... Answer me yes or no, did you shoot the person? Sean, let me.... Just answer the question yes or no. You need to understand.... You can't do it can you? You can't answer a simple yes or no question can you?

Alan Colmes: Sir, why did you shoot the person. Well, he was coming at me with a knife and said he was going to kill me.

BTW Sean, do you still beat your wife? Answer yes or no please.

Fox News dropped their 5pm 'Big Story" in favor of Election/Political news which is understandable in an election year. But I do miss the broader based news format.

There has been a dramatic drop in the converage of crime, entertainment, and even other hard news stories on all cable channels. I wonder if Court TV becoming Tru TV hasn't influenced crime coverage. I still miss Catherine Crier.

I like Keith Olbermann. He is bright, witty and his show is superbly done. I feel O'Reilly is...well...O'Reilly and will always be.

Mr. Poniewozik, how wonderful it is to read someone who writes that Fox viewers are "alienated by liberal news." Someone finally admitting that the news is liberal.

Lulu Lulu, I guess Fox News is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't in your opinion. If they had no liberal guests, you would complain. As it is you complain about the liberal guests it does have such as Susan Estrich, Kirsten Powers, Professor Marc Lamont Hill, Bob Beckel, Eleanor Clift, Harold Ford, Jr, Geraldine Ferraro, Ellis Henican, Mara Liasson, to name a few. They are all very opinionated. Even John Edwards was a regular guest on Fox before he ran for president. Then all of a sudden he found Fox News objectionable.

Mr. Poniewozik, I'm surprised you haven't mentioned Judge Andrew Napolitano, the legal consultant for Fox News. From day one, he was opposed to the Patriot Act and said so all over the Fox News Channel. He believes President Bush's War on Terror has not only invaded the privacy of every US citizen, it also has not kept us safe. He has written three books on the subject: A NATION OF SHEEP, CONSTITUTIONAL CHAOS, and CONSTITUTION IN EXILE.

CMR, not to engage in a blog war or anything, but that isn't *quite* what I said. I'm really quite liberal, and the few times I've watched Fox News (which is admittedly a low number) the person they had on to represent the liberal viewpoint was someone who embarrassed me with their comments. They were generally uninformed, looked rather unprofessional (a particular college professor comes to mind) and cowed under the pressure of Tucker Carlson.

My feelings about the Fox News liberal talking heads may be similar to how conservatives feel about Elisabeth Hasselbeck representing them on the View...except Fox News is news, while the View is a talk show.