Is Fox News Channel going soft? In an election year? Some media figures seem to think the hard-right channel is going to the “middle,” but this seems to be a figment of the centrist imagination.
New York magazine’s Gabriel Sherman has a short piece trying to make this case. His first bit of evidence is that Fox granted backstage access at its recent Republican debate to a New York Times reporter–as Sherman put it, “Fox‘s decision to allowTimes scribe Jim Rutenberg into the building to confront the candidates in person.” That sounds rather aggressive, and Sherman sees this as some sort of political shift:
If2010 was the year that Fox fueled the tea party–culminating in record ratings and the Republican sweep of the House midterms–2012 is shaping up to be the year that [Fox News president Roger] Ailes decided Fox will benefit if the political world recognizes that his network iswilling to make GOP candidates sweat in front of their base. Like any good candidate, the network plans to tack toward the center for the general election.
That “sweating” session was a debate moderated by three Republican attorneys general, who are in some ways to the right of some of the candidates–particularly Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Given that the conservative base of the Republican party seems to have questions about the ideological commitment of these two–especially Romney–the fact that Fox convened a debate where the candidates had to field questions from the right doesn’t really seem like playing to the “center.”
Sherman argues:
Conversations with Fox sources and media executives suggest a new strategy:Fox is trying to credibly capturethe center without alienating its loyal core of rabid viewers.To this end, the network is flexing its news-gathering muscles in high-profile ways that will capture media attention.
Fox has “news-gathering muscles”? Now this is news.
As Sherman points out in the piece, he’s not the first to make this Fox-t0-the-middle argument. That was Newsweek/Daily Beast‘s Howard Kurtz, who back in September tried to make a similar argument, based on interviews with Fox head Roger Ailes. Kurtz suggested that Ailes was “quietly repositioning America’s dominant cable-news channel”–specifically by hosting a debate where one could see
his anchors grilling the Republican contenders, which pleases the White House but cuts sharply against the network’s conservative image–and risks alienating its most rabid right-wing fans.
Again, this doesn’t quite add up–especially if one interprets the “grilling” to be of the right-wing base, red meat variety. Which seemed to be part of what was happening, according to Kurtz’s piece:
Hours before last week’s presidential debate in Orlando, Ailes’ anchors sat in a cavernous back room, hunched over laptops, and plotted how to trap the candidates. Chris Wallace said he would aim squarely at Rick Perry‘s weakness: “How do you feel about being criticized by some of your rivals as being too soft on illegal immigration? Then I go to Rick Santorum: Is Perry too soft?”
So pushing a right-wing position on immigration is going to the middle?
About the only real evidence of any ideological shift is the absence of Glenn Beck from Fox‘s line-up. One could argue that this is a shift to the middle, but if anything it’s a reminder that Beck’s program dealt in a conspiratorial brand of conservatism that was not so much to the right as it was off in the 4th dimension from Fox mainstays like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. Without Beck, Fox is back to its normally arch-conservative self.
Kurtz also caught this bit:
Ailes raises a Fox initiative that he cooked up: “Are our producers on board on this ‘Regulation Nation’ stuff? Are they ginned up and ready to go?” Ailes, who claims to be “hands off” in developing the series, later boasts that “no other network will cover that subject …. I think regulations are totally out of control,” he adds, with bureaucrats hiring Ph.D.s to “sit in the basement and draw up regulations to try to ruin your life.” It is a message his troops cannot miss.
Those must be Fox‘s news-gathering muscles in action–going after an anti-White House, anti-regulation storyline popular with conservatives… and at odds with reality.
To these ears and eyes, FOX has stayed true to course- by endorsing the conservative viewpoint on the days news.Just as Democracy Now ,and some of the other outlets have kept to the left.No doubt they want to capture more of the center.I suppose more of the left as well.They will do this by (lets face it)putting on a show people want to watch.People laugh at the “FOX BLONDES” or Democracy Nows crypt keepers.But all being equal….l it is easy to see who produces a far more watchable show.I watch Democracy Now because Im a wonk.But damn it is painful.(Glen Beck was painful to watch as well by the way.)See it is hard for libs to understand this but we on the conservative side see things very differently than you on the left.Sometimes for us it is like being in a room with Martians.Fox was/is a reflection of that dissociation.Case in Point…..When Obama came in we saw 4 years that would lead to stagnation and a larger downturn in the economy.Class warfare and moves to socialize healthcare.A man built on the concept that if he could only squeeze more from the top one percent…. all would be well(and other such fables.)Here was a man who would bail out union coffers, and hit the street running with shovel ready jobs paid for by the stimulus.He would clean the world(green) by imposing massive carbon taxes on industry here.He would break the backs of the so called rich and make them pay their fair share.Or at least more that the 87% they now pay.He would raise the people who pay nothing into Fed income taxes into the 50% mark(and other such goodies).You on the left championed by the Kieth Os and democracy Now led the way in proclaiming a new day.We on the right(FOX) saw things differently.THANK GOD!!!
I saw the study that was done a couple of weeks ago that showed that FOX viewers knew less about current events than people who watched NO news at all. I’ve never watched it myself, and from the sound of this study, it should be added to fat and sugar as “things to avoid”
Sad but true, Michael. And, Peter Hart, did you not catch this very revealing statement: “Like any good candidate, the network plans to tack toward the center for the general election.“? (emphasis mine–TimN) The vital center, believed in only by the Beltway talking heads and scribblers, rears it’s head–as usual.
And yet I saw a study indicating Rush listeners were thee most informed…..Go figure right?
Really, Rush listeners? “… I saw a study …” Citation, please.
Funny Leslie didn’t you mean….. citation please Michael e and michael?Your bias is showing love
Stick to the subject, michael e, and provide an actual citation, please.
Funny… it took michael e 7 minutes to flame back initially, but 4 hours later, no citation. It didn’t occur to me to ask Michael for a citation on the study showing that FoxNews viewers do more poorly on news facts than people who don’t follow the news do; I had learned of that study in an edited fact-checked print publication. (Here’s a link to the press release: http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/) I am not familiar with any study showing that Rush listeners are “the most informed.” Please provide a citation for this study.
Good lord Leslie it really is like dealing with Children.There are tons of these stupid studies….none of which I agree with because i am not a simpering moron.Check pew studies or the Annenberg public policy center,or any number of similar works.Rush has often come out on top for simple reasons.Those listening to him have the political bug.Of course they will rank above Howard stern.Probably equal to democracy now.If you believe any of this nonsense your a fool.
Once again, goin’ ad hominem. Children? Fool? You don’t agree with any of these “stupid studies,” but you (kinda, sorta) “cite” them. But actually look something up and then discuss it like an adult? Not so much.
Leslie I do not agree with these studies.To say one side or the other is better informed as a blanket statement is just so much fluff.To try to prove it with this google story or that is just adding to it.
Sorry for the nastiness.I was xmas shopping.
michael e, if you “do not agree with these studies,” then why would you mention the one about Limbaugh? That said, if you actually took the time to read these studies, you would see they are full of fact-based research (to which you have an aversion, I know), and not the “fluff” you would like to believe. I understand that doing a little fact-based research might hurt your brain a bit, but it would do wonders for the validity of your arguments.
TD i was being sarcastic.These studies are always ,and I do mean always trumpeted by whomever the host is.Rush does it daily.Hannity does it….And now your side of the isle has their champion..And by the by I HAVE heard Howard Stern do it.Yeah it is always someones audience who is the smartest ,best informed bla bla bla.I remember a study was done proving blacks are the least well informed in political matters.That one did not fly so well.I suppose if you do believe this sort of empirical data…we could do a poll seeing if blacks or whites understand the political landscape better.I would not.These polls fly by the seat of their pants.They are insulting and almost always agenda driven.