The Post-Accountability News Outlet

Post Reply New Topic

It was fascinating to watch NPR's reaction to the James O'Keefe videos. After the (deceptively edited) tapes were released, NPR rapidly and forcefully distanced itself from the two fundraising executives in question, placing them both on administrative leave. CEO Vivian Schiller was forced out, and all the while NPR media reporter David Folkenflik reported on the turmoil at his own company as if he were tapping on the glass of a fishbowl.

The two executives captured on the videos had no say over NPR's news product or editorial direction, and regardless of whether you agree with the actions NPR's senior management took, those corrective moves were clearly intended to demonstrate a culture of accountability and preserve their credibility as a news outlet. After all, that's what reputations and, ultimately, success in journalism are staked on... right?

Perhaps, for news outlets that hew to traditional modes of journalistic practice. Fox News, however, has proven to be largely disinterested in accountability, even in the face of numerous fiascoes that, had they occurred at other news outfits, would likely have sent heads rolling.

Let's break down Fox's reaction to their latest credibility-killing debacle. Last week, Media Matters revealed that Washington managing editor Bill Sammon admitted to pushing on-air the idea that Barack Obama advocated "socialism" despite "privately" thinking the idea was "rather far-fetched." Howard Kurtz of The Daily Beast spoke with Sammon, who said that his comments were "inartful," but by 2009 he was "astonished by how the needle had moved" -- a comment many interpreted as Sammon retroactively justifying a claim he believed to be false. He later spoke with NPR's Folkenflik and said he was simply characterizing conservative thought at the time: "I was, frankly, astonished that that was a serious topic of conversation in a presidential campaign."

That's pretty much been it. Perhaps more revealing are the steps not taken. Have any Fox News reporters commented or reported on the situation as Folkenflik did during NPR's troubles? Nope. Has Sammon faced any public consequences? No. Have there been any reports of private reprimands? Also no. Has there been any indication whatsoever that Fox News has shown any contrition for -- or even awareness of -- the gaping ethical breach that their Washington managing editor has torn open? Crickets all around.

Special dishonor goes to Fox News Watch, the Fox News weekend program specifically tasked with covering the media, which ignored the story entirely. Host Jon Scott even proclaimed at one point during the April 2 show that the mission of his program was to "cover the coverage and uncover media bias" -- right before launching into a mocking report on an over-the-top pro-Qaddafi Libyan news anchor.

The Sammon non-fallout is in keeping with past Fox News scandals, in which the unprofessional and offensive on-air comments of employees (up to and including jokes about the president's assassination) have been met with neglect from the network. After Glenn Beck called Obama a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people," NBC's First Read blog observed: "What's most amazing about this episode is that what Beck said isn't a fireable or even a SUSPENDABLE offense by his bosses. There was a time when outrageous rants like this would actually cost the ranters their jobs. But not anymore; if anything, it's now encouraged."

What Fox goes for instead is the appearance of accountability. Whenever one of these controversies pops up, the offender is typically on the "opinion" side of Fox News and the network's defenders are quick to claim that there exists a division at Fox News between "hard news" and "opinion." The network promotes this supposed division as well; when Special Report anchor Bret Baier appeared on The Daily Show two weeks ago, he said "we respect the viewers' ability to discern the difference between the two." The message is clear: Our news guys don't do, and wouldn't get away with, Glenn Beck-style hijinks.

However, the fact that a bona-fide ideologue like Sammon is a managing editor at Fox News suggests the exact opposite is true. And the fact that Sammon remains secure in his position suggests that the network executives want him to continue twisting the "hard news" coverage to echo the hard-line conservatism that saturates the "opinion" portion of Fox's programming.

It's not "news" in the traditional sense, and it's fundamentally dishonest. But Fox News' departure from traditional journalism necessitates a departure from established notions of accountability. After all, when you hire someone to be a liar, can you really fire him for doing his job?


http://mediamatters.org/blog/201104040020

@ skafather84

Actually Fox News is not hypocritical. Mediamatters as usual deliberately leaves information out. I also pointed out to you repeatedly that mediamatters has literally no credibility when it comes to Fox News, especially after they publicly declared a vendetta against Fox News.

NPR receives taxpayer money, while Fox News does not.

Since NPR takes tax money they are supposed to not take political sides (though they have broken the law for years). Fox News is profit driven and does not receive taxpayer money. The difference in legal requirements is why Fox News is not being hypocritical.

By engaging in partisan behavior, NPR is giving the Republicans a good case to defund NPR.

Quite frankly, mediamatters is also breaking the law, as I've pointed out earlier mediamatters is a 501c nonprofit. Because they are a 501c nonprofit, they are not supposed to engage in partisan behavior and/or supporting a specific political party (arguably they've been breaking the law for years). However, they publicly declared a partisan war against conservative bloggers and Fox News, proving that they are going to engage in extremely partisan behavior in an attempt to shut down or discredit Conservatives, they neglected to file to change their tax status so they are committing tax fraud.

But I guess that doesn't matter to liberals because in a liberal's mind, the ends always justify the means.

So NPR shouldn't be criticizing a profit-driven 'news' outlet for hypocrisy and lack of accountability and should therefore lose its funding for railing against Fox News, which is essentially funded to be partisan?

Wow Inuyasha, the sheer, wilful (or otherwise) idiocy in your post amazes me. Attacking an outlet for being biased is not "partisan behaviour". Media Matters, at best, represents a soft left ideological point of view. So if you go after Media Matters there's hundreds of other politically based NGOs you'd have to defund.

How is it hypocrisy? Fox News has people make contraversial statements all the time on both sides of the aisle (Kirsten Powers, Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes (semi-retired), Geraldo are all liberals). They can do that because they are profit driven, the guy stirred up contraversy in a way that actually got more people to pay attention to Fox News, it isn't like it hurt their bottom line.

NPR is government funded, they are not supposed to engage in partisanship because they are funded with people's tax money.


Actually, I'm not the one that is ignorant. Criticism is one thing, but declaring you will engage in sabotage and guerella warfare is highly partisan (and quite possibly illegal as well).


The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/03 ... z1IagU0ofh

I'd gladly give all my tax dollars to destroying News Corps.

That would mean the end of the First Amendment. Is that what you favor?

ruveyn

So Fox News still has no accountability and leeches money off of the undereducated and mentally impaired.

The "leeching" is voluntary. Not a cent of tax money is involved.

You have no standing whatsoever in determining what the "uneducated and mentally impaired" do with their own money. You spend your money the way you see fit and leave others along to do the same thing.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 04 Apr 2011, 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I would think it is what he favors, though he will deny it after being called out on it.

Liberals hate Fox News because it is the only News Organization that actually dares to seriously criticize their mesiah.

A lot of liberals don't like Obama.
Personally I don't like Fox because its partisan, full of s**t and funded specifically to promote an agenda. If it were a left wing media outlet, I would have the same problem with it

Vigilans, that would mean you would have a problem with every media outlet... Fox News is profit driven and contrary to what you have been told, they have liberals on as regular guests, analysts, etc.

That is correct, good sir

BS. Fox is massively, massively biased in favor of republicans. On Bill O' Reillys show, only 1 in 5 guests are Liberal, and when they are aloud to speak, Bill cuts across with a fallacious argument, and a million rednecks yokels jump up and cheer in celebration of the victory of stupidity

So what? No one is forced to watch Fox News.

ruveyn

They're already going down that road. I'd rather deny them rights than them deny me my rights.