Chaos reigns: Out-foxing Fox

You'll see it's all a show
Keep 'em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.

And always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the right side of life...

Fox will only spin furiously, even further out into fringe territory -- solidifying its base (in the Palin sense)

What does the phrase "solidifying its base" mean? I take it to mean that more people will be attracted to the ideologies proffered by Fox News personalities. I assume those people will come from the mainstream--leaving fewer people in the mainstream (whatever the wishy-washy word "mainstream" refers to).

If only "2.5 million Americans watch Fox News," then why is the Obama administration devoting time and energy to manipulating their format? Either Fox News is a bit player in the political realm and the Obama administration is wasting resources addressing them, or Fox News has considerable influence and the administration is worried about their agenda being derailed. Which is it?

JE: Scalzi says this: "Conservatives moaned about liberal bias in the press to carve out an alternative ideological media under the guise of “balance,” but never managed to marginalize the “liberal media” in any significant way; it was just too damn big. Obama, on the other hand, is picking a fight with a small conservative entity and is essentially forcing it to do what he wants — make conservatism (and by extension the GOP) look like an extreme political position — by adding to what it needs to survive: an audience. But it’s a small-scale audience comprised of people already opposed to the president and his policies (ie., no great political loss). The conservative war on the media was Clausewitz; the Obama war on the media is Sun Tzu."

The Shep Smith clip is hilarious. Wonder how long till he has to find a new teevee home?

Also, Dollhouse hasn't actually (yet) been cancelled.

JE: Thanks, I see that its fate is uncertain, even though Fox isn't airing its 13th episode.

"all reflecting a general attitude that's anti-liberal and anti-moderate, but not necessarily coherently conservative."

Ugh. FoxNews exists because of the overwhelming domination of Left-leaning views in news and various media outlets that has existed for decades.

Saying FN is anti-liberal is understandable (when discussing the opinion programming) and an opening to real debate regarding how "news" is handled but when you couple that with "anti-moderate" the complaint just becomes silly. I mean really, "anti-moderate"??

Can we set aside the grotesque mutual masturbation routine long enough to recognize reality?

The response to Foxnews should have been "Whoa, we're obviously not doing our job, lets diversify our staff so various political and social views are properly represented".

What we got instead was a ridiculous ideological war that even the WH has engaged in.

JE: I think the key factor (if I may use that word) behind the myth/meme of the "liberal media" (as tactically employed by GOP politicians over the years) is this: Much of what was considered "conservative" in the 1970s and 1980s (many policies of the Nixon and Reagan administrations, for example) would now be considered lunatic lefty stuff by Fox. The GOP succeeded for a while in moving the "center" of American political discussion (if not the actual values) to the right. But the pendulum inevitably swings back and forth. Scalzi sees it this way: "[Fox is] the number one cable news network because it’s explicitly conservative in viewpoint where other news networks and organizations are not. Fox News garners the viewers for whom ideology trumps news; every other news organization splits the rest of the viewers.

"This is good news for Fox News, since four decades of conservative railing against “the liberal media” has given it a core of like-minded viewers, who being conservative are also loyal: they’re going to be with Fox News come hell or high water (as long as Fox News doesn’t change its ideological bent, that is). [...]

"Conservatives moaned about liberal bias in the press to carve out an alternative ideological media under the guise of “balance,” but never managed to marginalize the “liberal media” in any significant way; it was just too damn big. Obama, on the other hand, is picking a fight with a small conservative entity and is essentially forcing it to do what he wants — make conservatism (and by extension the GOP) look like an extreme political position — by adding to what it needs to survive: an audience. But it’s a small-scale audience comprised of people already opposed to the president and his policies (ie., no great political loss)."

It might be a good political tactic, I wouldn't know. But when the Obama administration decided to try it, I realized that all Obama's reading about Lincoln clearly didn't teach him anything. Making the country even more politically divided is a good idea?

JE: The question is whether it's actually divisive (especially compared to, say, "You're either with us or the terrorists"), or whether it's drawing a legitimate distinction between real news organizations and the talk-radio-like opinion factory that is Fox News. There's never been anything quite like Fox News before. None of the major broadcast networks' news operations has ever been as outspokenly ideological as Fox. In part that's because they felt it was important to maintain their credibility as professional journalistic enterprises. But they couldn't have done what Fox does if they'd wanted to, because of the Fairness Doctrine, which was abolished by the FCC during the Reagan administration (1987). Fox News, as a cable channel that wasn't launched until 1996, has never been subject to those standards. The biases in news coverage tend to be invisible to those who share them -- think of the blatant corporate institutional biases and pro-American biases that all our major networks tend to share, but that we rarely seem to acknowledge (even when it's obvious, as in 9/11 coverage). Fox, beginning with the memorable slogans "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide," positioned itself as an alternative to the minority view of "left-wing media bias" by appealing to its target audience's rightward leanings. It looked "fair and balanced" to them -- because it confirmed what they already believed. I'm not saying that's exclusive to Fox, either. This version of "confirmation bias" has traditionally been more subtle, that's all.

I'm reminded of the Daily Show bit in which Steve Carell (or maybe Stephen Colbert, or somebody else) showed a list of the things teenagers like to do, and watching the news ranked just above eating a plate of one's own sh*t.

I'm not sure that the Obama administration the law of "Unintended Consequences" when it began its charge against Fox News.

It's not wise for an administration to go after people and organizations. Richard Nixon tried that and look what it got him. Worse yet, it invites comparison . . . "so, who's more paranoid, Nixon or Obama?" Or, "Mr. President, do you have an enemies list like the Nixon administration did?"

Does Obama really want to have to defend himself from those comparisons?

Maybe there's no clever strategy and Obama and his minions are just a little thin-skinned, not to mention paranoid.

I'm not sure it's wise for the Obama Administration to attack a news organization like Fox. Instead they should be engaging Fox, going on their shows, presenting their views, and arguing their points.

Like it or not, Fox is the most viewed cable news network and does reach a wide audience. I would like to see the numbers on their audience. Mr. Scalzi puts forth the point that "Fox News isn't the number one cable news channel because it has a broad spectrum of viewers" without backing it up in any way. Perhaps it is widely watched by moderates or independents. If so, Obama could be taking his points directly to this audience, rather than trying to marginalize them.

Also, his argument that 297.5 million Americans don't watch Fox is a silly. Even though 275 million people don't watch American Idol (I don't have the actual numbers, but I think it draws about 25 million) it is still the most watched TV show. Fox, regardless of how many people don't watch it, remains the most watched cable news network.

I would like to see our president put more effort in reaching out to the other side and seeking to unify rather than dismissing and seeking to marginalizing his opponents.

"JE: I think the key factor (if I may use that word) behind the myth/meme of the "liberal media"

If the "liberal media" was a "myth" Foxnews never would have found such an audience and maintained it.

An open mind or LIBERAL mind would at least pay some attention to that incredibly obvious fact.
When a group of like-minded people dominate a particular profession (or business, or media outlet...) it doesn't take a blatant conspiracy for information to be shaped.

PS- I am really tired and about to get some much needed sleep, that is why I did not give a more thorough response.

There is a thing called freedom of choice. If people choose to watch Fox News over CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC, let them. If people choose to watch the latter over the former, let them. Freedom of speech is nothing new to this country, I think we should be respectful of both liberal and conservative philosophies, despite our political standings. In my opinion, President Obama should not waste his time warring on Fox News, he should spend his time thinking of ways to do the right thing for this country, regardless of what his critics think. Is that not true leadership? People can think what they want about George W. Bush, but one praise you can give him as President is that he never (not to my knowledge) warred against any specific news agency that slanted against him and his decisions; we can only imagine what would've happened if he did! Instead, he did what he felt was "right" (whether or not his decisions were right or not are for us to rightfully decide). All this to say, I find this all very silly, if not, stupid; I don't care if Fox declares itself as "Fair and Balanced," we have the choice as free citizens to change the news channel if we disagree with it or find it untruthful, do we not? The question remains; however, why don't they?

Jim, I agree with you completely about the subtlety. It just angers me when the White House decides to exclude the media that, conveniently, they don't agree with. (Remember Nixon and Sam Donaldson?) Basically, by excluding Fox News, Obama is telling anyone who watches it that their leanings aren't valid.

To give some contrast, I ordered some Frontline videos a few years ago to learn more about how 9/11 came about. One video was from 2002, and talked about the "September 11th terrorist attacks." A couple of others were more recent, and mentioned at least once apiece the "intelligence failure of September 11th" - and they did it when they weren't focused on the CIA or FBI or anything. In other words, they chose to emphasize that aspect of 9/11.

Now, there's no question that 9/11 was both of those things, but still. Why focus on what the government did wrong? When was the last time you saw Time/Life advertise a video on the "Pearl Harbor intelligence failure"? Heaven knows that it was just that, but pretty much all media are more willing to focus on how it was a dastardly attack. 9/11 they're more willing to focus on the government's failure. Because they love FDR and hate Bush? Could be; the media always prefers a sympathetic, articulate president. Even Reagan got off lighter with him because of his excellent communication skills. (Consider how the media was with Clinton; objectively, you'd figure it's time to get the hand sanitizer after shaking with him; but he's evidently so charismatic that the media let up on him, at least to some extent.)

I suppose I'll just close by saying: if Obama had picked any other media outlet to do this, there'd be a media firestorm. By picking the one that has the opposite bias to virtually all media...where's the support for fellow journalists, the kind you hear whenever one is under contempt for not revealing law-breaking sources? It's why I pay almost no attention to the news anymore, I just read movie reviews...

JE: I pretty much gave up on TV news during the George H.W. Bush administration. Too little meaningful information, too much time spent on trivialities presented as meaningful information. That said, I follow Fox (mostly online), not because they offer any news value, but precisely because they so completely bought into Cheney's vision that the "reality-based community" is a thing of the past, and that the "news" is whatever the Bush administration decided it was. We shouldn't forget how Bush, Cheney and other administration officials used (and, in Cheney's case, still use) Fox as their house organ. Bush spoke of "going beyond the filter" -- and Fox was happy to accommodate. The politicization of Fox News isn't a new development -- it was there from the inception (it's built into the concept). So, after watching it in operation for all these years, do you treat it as a legitimate news operation -- even though it manifestly isn't -- just because it still claims it is? If anything, the Obama administration has been a little behind the curve in acknowledging that the Fox emperor has no clothes. You wouldn't expect Obama to go on Rush Limbaugh's show; why should we expect him to treat Fox, which operates by the same non-journalistic standards as Limbaugh, any differently?

9/11 was, from that very day in 2001, almost universally characterized as the biggest intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor, for the obvious reason that those are the two most devastating attacks by foreigners on US soil. Many Americans had been under the illusion (delusion?) that they were "safe" from such attacks. What we learned later about how much the government and the intelligence community DID know, but that wasn't effectively acted upon, only confirmed that assessment: the August 6, 2001, presidential intelligence briefing memo "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."; the various FBI investigators who notified their superiors that known or suspected al Qaeda terrorists were taking flying lessons and that their flight school instructors had reported their suspicious interests in learning how to take off but not to land; the multiple warnings about the hijackers -- some about specific individuals -- from foreign intelligence agencies in many countries (notably Israel, Great Britain, Egypt, Germany...); the surveillance of several of the hijackers BEFORE 9/11 that wasn't followed up with proper action; and on and on... Although some in the intelligence community DID, in fact, "connect the dots" -- even tying particular individuals to a particular plot -- they were unable to pass their information through the chain-of-command bureaucracy so that these individuals could have been followed. So, just about the only people who don't consider the 9/11 attacks a massive intelligence failure (or bureaucratic failure) are those who think the U.S. government either planned them or allowed them to happen for political reasons.

I noticed a lot of tension inthat clip!

In the very beginning of the clip, Shep asks, "So the Democrat is going to win, right?" The reporter seems caught off guard--she glances down, but then brightens up as she side-steps the question so she can introduce "the Republican contender" instead, her voice raising excitedly as she emphasizes those words. Then, when Shep deliberately asks, "When are you going to interview John Corzine?" (with, I thought, more than a note of irritaion in his voice), the reporter again seems caught off guard (notice the quick clenching of her jaw and the pause before her answer), plasters a deadly smile on her face, and promises, "We'll let you know"--basically, blowing Shep and the question off. (In fact, when she claims, "We have in multiple requests," her tone resembles that of Jerry Lundegaard telling Marge Gunderson that he actually is cooperating with her.)

JE: "You wouldn't expect Obama to go on Rush Limbaugh's show; why should we expect him to treat Fox, which operates by the same non-journalistic standards as Limbaugh, any differently?"

This is a bit of an overstatment. There are certainly specific shows on Fox (people like Hannity or Beck) that operate that way. I would not expect Obama to go on those shows (although I still think it would be smarter to have some people from his administration go on and engage them directly). There are other shows, however that have more journalistic standards and would give him a fair interview. If I remember correctly, he was interviewed on O'Reilly's show (also an opinion show, not a hard news show) during the primary and was treated fairly. I remember thinking at the time that it was a good, fair interview where I learned quite a bit more about Obama's specific positions than I had from seeing previous interviews.

JE: "...that the "news" is whatever the Bush administration decided it was."

Isn't Obama guilty of the same thing? His administration decides that the stories Fox runs are not, in fact, news, so they attempt to marginalize Fox. Isn't that an attempt to determine what is or isn't news?

JE: Some do see it that way. The crucial difference is that when the Bush aide who coined the term "reality-based community" used it with Ron Rosenbaum ( http://bit.ly/m3Vm ) in the summer of 2002, it was in this context:

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Well, reality eventually caught up with them, and overran them, but you see where they were coming from, and it explains a lot about what they chose to do and what they didn't choose to do. Presidents often criticize their press coverage, or have others do it for them (anybody remember Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativism" or ""an effete corps of impudent snobs"? -- phrases coined by speechwriter William Safire?). Bush and co. often badmouthed the New York Times -- although its reporting on the invasion of Iraq and other stories was sharply slanted (recall Judith Miller?) in his administration's favor -- even when the known facts did not support what they were printing.

So, the difference is that Bush's "faith-based presidency" was openly disdainful of the role of facts and critical thinking (see previous post, "Study: Bush was not unintelligent") in determining policy. The case of Obama and Fox is something else entirely. Yes, the network is openly and pervasively critical of him -- not just on the opinion shows, but on the news shows (ever seen Britt Hume or Chris Wallace in action?). I don't think it's a matter of whether Obama feels he has been "treated fairly" when interviewed by Fox personalities, but whether a partisan organization should be accorded the same privileges as a legitimate news operation. As Gene Lyons wrote yesterday at Salon.com:

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."

One place to begin understanding the history of Fox News would be the collection of links (Recommended Reads) that accompany the above story, here: http://bit.ly/emqnO

Oh, absolutely, Jim. The only thing is...it's all still spin. Everything on TV news is just trying to get ratings, generally by appealing to some slice of the viewing public. (I miss Uncle Walter.)

I don't blame the Obama people from not wanting to cooperate with Fox; but singling them out? As you more or less said (not trying to put words in your mouth), they're just less subtle.

JE: That's where the hard critical-thinking work comes in, because there's so much spin, misinformation, and sloppiness in the media as a whole. There always has been, but as individuals we have more access to information that used to be available only to reporters. I get just as disgusted at the NY Times on occasion, though not as often -- more disgusted, actually, because I don't expect real reporting from Fox and I hold the NYT to much higher standards. Journalistic ones. It's depressing how often one of the best newsgathering organizations in the country falls short. But, on the other hand, there was that study that showed those who primarily relied on Fox for their news thought we found WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Repeat the associations enough times (even if you don't make causal connections with actual evidence) and people will start believing them.

Staggeringly moronic, to say the least. Out of all the news networks that lean decisively left (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and so on), there's exactly one that leans right, and it just drives you guys NUTS. People actually have a source of information that isn't run wholly by people who attend Democratic fundraisers every other weekend, and it's really putting a crimp in that whole media hedgemony thing you liberals came to take for granted. I mean, without Fox News your beloved communist Van Jones would still be the green czar, and people might not have any clue exactly what kind of church Obama willingly attended for over a decade. Hell, it probably saddnes you that it's now slightly more difficult for ACORN to offer aid to those who would help pimps with underage employees get home loans. So much for the charge that only conservatives reject "reality-based" news, though.

You know, if the president were a Republican and he publicly declared war on MSNBC, I can practically write your own article for you. There would be the self-righteous blather about that 1st Amendement you only care about when it applies to you and those you agree with, there would be ridicule about how thin-skinned and tempermental the Republicans are, and there would be a surplus of pretentiousness about the sacred news media and how chilling it is that a sitting president would actively try to dictate what news gets put out and what doesn't.

Jeez guys, grow up. You've got the executive and legislative branches in your favor. If health care reform or Afghanistan or gay marriage or whatever else doesn't go the way you want it, blame the people in your own party, not the opposition.

I note that you failed to discuss how the liberal networks actually backed Fox when the Obama admin tried to deny them entry to an interview with one of their officals. But hey, I leave out information that doesn't help my case, too. When I'm appyling for a job.

JE: So, you're saying you think Fox News is no different than any other cable or network news channel except for its right-leaning orientation? You'd have to deny an awful lot of history to make that statement. (I can't speak for MSNBC -- I don't watch it and, except for the Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow opinion shows I've seen clips of on YouTube, I don't know what it does. Does it offer newscasts, or just NBC reruns?) In my original post, I offer this link to an opinion piece on Salon, headlined "Why is the media defending Fox and attacking Obama?": http://bit.ly/4pahuR Excerpt:

Certainly, the White House -- any White House -- shouldn't be in charge of deciding who does and doesn't cover the administration. But that's not entirely what's at stake with Fox News. Aides insist they're not freezing out Fox's White House correspondent, Major Garrett. (Fox's P.R. officials wouldn't allow Garrett to talk to Salon for this story.) The administration hasn't banned Fox reporters from official events; so far, the battle is mostly rhetorical. But that hasn't stopped other news outlets from sticking up for Fox, anyway.

Is anyone really surprised that the press is circling the wagons? What the Obama administration has said about Fox's partisan coverage is incontestably true. You'd think other networks would be eager to separate themselves from Fox, since credibility comes only with upholding journalistic standards. But even though every administration criticizes its press coverage, the press gets understandably nervous about it -- even when it's justified.

If Obama took the same action against MSNBC he might have some credibility.

I saw u mentioned the "Fairness Doctrine" in a context that made it seem positive, Jim...you don't actually support that perverse form of speech control, do you?

JE: I might be all for it, if I was familiar with MSNBC's news programming. But I'm not. I don't even watch its opinion shows because I'm disheartened by the whole genre of TV "news junkie" programming -- from the Sunday talking heads shows to the talk-radio-on-TV shows. I don't watch 'em.

KWJ on October 29, 2009 2:22 PM
...When was the last time you saw Time/Life advertise a video on the "Pearl Harbor intelligence failure"? Heaven knows that it was just that, but pretty much all media are more willing to focus on how it was a dastardly attack.

And let's not forget that for the Japanese, it wasn't supposed to be a dastardly sneak attack, but was supposed to follow (almost immediately) a notification to the US government that peace talks were at an end. The Japanese government transmitted this message to its Washington embassy, but it took them longer to transcribe it than they thought it would, and arrived after the attack. But for that misfortune, Pearl Harbour would have been a (somewhat) legitimate exercise of war instead of a sneak attack.

Wes Lyons on October 29, 2009 1:54 PM
...People can think what they want about George W. Bush, but one praise you can give him as President is that he never (not to my knowledge) warred against any specific news agency that slanted against him and his decisions...

Actually, Wes, I do seem to recall reading a news article about how the Bush White House would revoke the credentials of journalists who were part of news orgnizations that criticized the administration. This made it impossible for them to attend White House press conferences and briefings. The Bush administration also refused interview requests from these organizations. And in the U.S., the administration controls who asks questions and in what order - the Bush administration would not allow questions from news organizations if the administration knew the questions were not going to be "soft tosses".

Given that White House press conferences and interviews are the life-blood of any journalism enterprise attempting to report on politics, most tended to quietly toe the line.

This has been contrasted for many years with our Canadian system, in which it is the journalists who control the order of who asks questions at formal press conferences. This persisted for many decades until our current Prime Minister stopped having formal press conferences and making major announcements at carefully-controlled venues and only answering the questions he wanted to answer. These and other of his practices added fuel to the fire that he was attempting to become "presidential", and have probably done more over the long term to keep him from winning a legislative majority than anything else.

Jim, I highly suggest you watch some MSNBC before making such imbecilic comments. Compare the news stories, compare what is covered or not. Then you'll understand why Obama's comments were uncalled for, an attack on free speech, and hypocritical.

JE: I didn't write anything about MSNBC. This is about Fox. So, what are these "imbecilic comments" you attribute to me? Is what Fox does OK if (as you seem to imply, but I'm not sure) MSNBC (which I'm told has no nightly newscast) does something simliar? How so? And what is your criticism of "Obama's comments" that makes them "uncalled for, an attack on free speech, and hypocritical"?

Surely I can't be the only one who sees the incongruity of deriding the Fairness Doctrine while demanding Jim take up a case against MSNBC if he says something negative about FOX.

I would also point out that the Obama admin. folks never "declared war" on FOX. A few subordinates claimed Fox was biased and repeated Republican talking points, a point seemingly no one argues with, yet this has somehow turned into a "war" because Fox says so. Jumping to conclusions and ascribing motivation is becoming endemic.

The so-called "liberal media" is so dadgum afraid of being thought to be partial that they kowtow every time Fox hollers about anything.

JE: You nailed it, Jason. The mainstream media is so scared of being considered "biased" that they'd rather BE biased to make the accusations go away.

Sorry Jason, but you're being intellectually dishonest with your discussion of the Obama administration. Rahm Emanuel, hardly a "subordinate", said this on CNN a couple weeks ago:
"No, it's not so much a conflict with Fox News. But, unlike I suppose the way to look at it, and the way we, the President looks at it, we look at it is it's not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. And that's a different take. And more importantly is not have the CNN's and the others in the world basically be led and following Fox as if that what they're trying to do is a legitimate news organization in the sense of both sides' sense of a valued opinion. "

What the Chief of Staff was saying is that pay no attention to Fox. He didn't say they merely repeated GOP talking points. He said don't listen to them because it has a perspective. Is their perspective wrong? It's hard to imagine so, seeing as how they were able to shed light on controversies within the White House. FoxNews does have a conservative slant, but what they report and discuss has a prominence in our national dialogue. They were singled out in an attempt to become marginalized because it didn't fit with the President's talking points.

Fox news is admittedly biased, but I think you're missing part of the picture. This bias is only irrelevant to discourse when it takes the form of values bias, or prescriptive statements imposed over actual news. Much of the conservative position is non-prescriptive, it simply describes or models some aspect of the world. This is the case even for Fox News, who as you so well put it don't pretend to unite behind one coherent political philosophy.

In principle, bias has a place in reporting, provided it isn't values bias. Of course, Fox News does not appear to have the discipline to pull off such a function in practice.

I think what is important to remember about the arguement of media bias is not that CNN and the like don't report news. It issimply that they fail to report all the news which sometimes paints certain people in a negative light. Fox News lives off of this missed opportunity and makes the other networks look like they are asleep at the wheel. Maybe if all the networks would actually report all stories regardless of their fear of how it plays out, they might get their numbers up and actually compete with Fox. Just saying...