Politically, it wasn't the most intelligent move. It simply gives the network more fodder for its daily one-sided salvos at him.
Coming from a journalist's point of view, there was no reason to pick that fight. Why? Because it's been blatantly obvious for years that Fox News is a joke and a disgrace to the profession. Why complain and give legitimacy to the most illegitimate of networks currently on the air?
To me it's not the blatant partisanship thats offensive, it's Fox's systematic undermining of my profession with what they try to pass off as journalism that offends me.
One of the most fundamental and basic purposes of journalism is to inform people of what's going on in the community, region and world around them with the most timely, complete and accurate information possible. The goal is to help create a well-informed, enlightened public. Fox News turns that basic premise of journalism on it's head. Back in 2003, a study was conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland regarding "Misperceptions, The Media and the Iraq War." The study asked people about three major misconceptions about the war -- that there were links between Iraq and al-Queda, that WMDs were found in Iraq and world opinion approved of the invasion.
A staggering 80 percent of Fox News viewers held one or more of these completely incorrect statements. Studies haven't been conducted on other more recent topics such as the health care debate, but everything I've ever seen from this network in the six years since then suggests its made absolutely no progress.
A media outlet that fails that fundamental task of fostering an accurately and well-informed public is a failure and disgrace to the profession. Where does any media outlet get off being proud of making its viewers less informed, rather than the other way around?
Comments
Roger wrote on Nov 12, 2009 10:32 AM:
Bruce Anderson wrote on Nov 11, 2009 9:14 AM:
Dave wrote on Nov 10, 2009 9:42 PM:
kathy wrote on Nov 10, 2009 2:00 PM:
MR wrote on Nov 8, 2009 8:49 AM:
If you don't believe there is a slant, watch "Outfoxxed: Rupert Murdoch's War On Journalism." It talks to former Fox News employees about what type of changes they've made in response to Murdoch's demands. While I agree MSNBC and CNN do similar things, few are as well documented as Fox News.
Getting back to my original point though, when Fox News tilts there coverage it does so in a news setting. Not just with it's talking late-night hosts. While MSNBC does the same thing in the reverse angle, this article doesn't deny that. As for those quiting there subscriptions, give me a break. You're only proving that you only like your news from a biased reporter, just not one with this writers biases. That's sad, and only proves his point further. Fox preys on the viewers who are already happy in their conservative views and only want news to support their preconcieved opinions.
I wouldn't be suprised if hundreds of years ago, you would all be upset if someone told you the world was round (as long as Fox News said it was flat). Mr. Smith wasn't the pot calling the kettle black, Mr. Smith called the kettle a kettle. Where's the injustice? "
adam p wrote on Nov 6, 2009 6:40 PM:
Ed Hagan wrote on Nov 6, 2009 6:33 PM:
BG wrote on Nov 6, 2009 2:30 PM:
Informed Reader wrote on Nov 5, 2009 11:00 PM:
I think it is very hard hitting journalism to write an editorial based on a report authored and published by heavy contributors to the DNC. Personally, when I contribute information for public consumption I like to give a little background on my source. A simple search of the article title and donor and you can see their slant. I guess stating that the report was written by a bunch of biased democrats instead of an unbiased source doesn't carry the same weight.
Thanks for the humorous editorial. "
snow wrote on Nov 5, 2009 7:08 PM:
Sara wrote on Nov 5, 2009 6:42 PM:
I agree with you 100% about the obviousness of Fox News's bias, and how disgusting it is. Their hypocrisy is almost laughable, but considering as how many people (including apparently many readers here) take it as gospel, it's more scary than anything. Especially when their "news" programs (I'm not talking O'Reilly, Beck, etc. whose shows are opinion shows disguised as news), but the ACTUAL news time slots are quite often laced with right wing comments and innuendos.
Truth be told, the entire state of journalism in the United States is pretty awful. "News" shows are focused on stories like "balloon boy" and what Michelle Obama's best outfits are, and the First family's dog, etc. etc, while focus is drawn away from the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other RELEVANT news stories. Edward Murrow and Walter Cronkite are rolling in their graves. "
Zach Eiken wrote on Nov 5, 2009 2:03 PM:
Now for Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly they are simply commentators expressing their POV. They do not report the news, they analyze it and present their opinions, much like the likes of Campbell Brown, Larry King, etc. Yet you do not view their affiliated networks with presenting the news in a biased way? Maybe I am just too stupid to understand.
PRESENT BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY BEFORE YOU PRINT SOMETHING AS SLANDEROUS AS THIS. IN THIS ARTICLE YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED BOTH SIDES AND IN NEGLECTING THIS PRINCIPLE OF JOURNALISM YOU HAVE BECOME JUST AS BIASED AS THE PEOPLE YOU UNJUSTLY CHOSE TO CRITICIZE. "
Don Johnson wrote on Nov 5, 2009 1:33 PM:
bozo b wrote on Nov 5, 2009 1:31 PM:
Mary Stenberg wrote on Nov 5, 2009 12:16 PM:
headward wrote on Nov 5, 2009 10:55 AM:
Rick wrote on Nov 5, 2009 8:38 AM:
Rick wrote on Nov 5, 2009 8:32 AM:
Sigma wrote on Nov 5, 2009 7:14 AM:
Which brings me to a thought...we live in a culture (and by that, I mean the culture of Williston and of North Dakota as a whole) that generally believes that a person "has to stand for something, or they'll fall for anything." I wonder when we crossed the line between the noble desire to stand for something that is right and the huburis of trying to stand for everything?
In the end, I'll give Nick credit for making an effort at a hard hitting editorial. The readers had best remember, however, that this is an editorial...an opinion. God save us from the day when opinions are banned. "
KMH wrote on Nov 4, 2009 11:47 PM:
One of the most fundamental and basic purposes of journalism is to inform people of what's going on in the community, region and world around them with the most timely, complete and accurate information possible. The goal is to help create a well-informed, enlightened public.
That is exactly what Foxs new does and you should be proud that we have a news channel that you can watch that tells the truth and informs us of the corrupt government that we have.I guess the races where most of the Republicans won last night should tell you that people out there are getting the message too that Democratics are mostly corrupt. "
Bernie Arcand wrote on Nov 4, 2009 10:58 PM:
Fox news uncovered the irregularities of ACORN & SEIE...Where were the other "investigative reporters" from the other networks? Since we have free speech (perhaps for perhaps a limited time) you have every right to express your opinion in your column, but understand this, we don't judge the Williston Almost Daily Herald as a newspaper by just reading the want ads. Get the picture?? "
snowbound wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:16 PM:
Kelly wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:12 PM:
ls wrote on Nov 4, 2009 7:07 PM:
Rick wrote on Nov 4, 2009 6:00 PM:
David Sagaser wrote on Nov 4, 2009 5:23 PM:
Yeah...it's an opinion piece and he's giving his opinion...fine. But, if he's claiming to be a professional journalist, This needs to be classed up a bit...actually, classed up a LOT! "
Common Sense wrote on Nov 4, 2009 4:45 PM:
HUGE difference guys. "
jsh wrote on Nov 4, 2009 2:33 PM:
Erik Sell wrote on Nov 4, 2009 1:35 PM:
To the writer of this article, Mr. Smith, what a true journalism disgrace is that you didn't point out the unbelievable liberal bias of MSNBC. To all Republicans and Democrats, if you're going to point out the bias of one "news" station, be aware of your own party's mouthpiece channel. "
Olbermann and Maddow Fan wrote on Nov 4, 2009 1:17 PM:
I never watch Fox News or as Keith Olbermann calls it “Fix News.”
I do however watch the Keith Olbermann show and the Rachel Maddow show almost religiously and know they are news people I can trust with factual information not lies or half truths.
Both the Olbermann and Maddow shows have an enormous amount of commercials and that tells me something about what shows are really watched and the ratings they get. On the other hand I sometimes watch the Glenn Beck show with the sound on mute. His facial expressions and body language is hilarious, he is such a clown but he has few advertisers and that tells me something too. "
Jeremy wrote on Nov 4, 2009 12:25 PM:
Middle of the Road wrote on Nov 4, 2009 12:03 PM:
Bill wrote on Nov 4, 2009 11:38 AM:
fox NEWS wrote on Nov 4, 2009 11:28 AM:
Williston Guy wrote on Nov 4, 2009 10:54 AM:
By the way, it has been a year now! How is that "Hope and Change" working out for you? "
BA wrote on Nov 4, 2009 9:44 AM:
Bill Brasky wrote on Nov 4, 2009 9:37 AM:
nolongerareader wrote on Nov 4, 2009 9:05 AM:
Oh boy... Even The Williston Herald cant get it right sometimes..
Pack your bags buddy, from reading these comments, your no longer welcome in this town. "
randy waitman wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:35 AM:
;o) "
tj wrote on Nov 4, 2009 3:31 AM:
CONRAD JUELKE wrote on Nov 3, 2009 8:51 PM:
IT APPEARS THAT YOU ARE MUCH TOO YOUNG AND INEXPERIENCED TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT OBAMA'S BACKERS AND OBAMA, WITH THE HELP OF REID AND PULOSI, ARE DOING TO YOU,I, AND THE AMERICA THAT WE ALL HAVE LOVED AND MANY INCLUDING MYSELF HAVE FOUGHT WARS TO PRESERVE. ONE OF THESE DAYS AMERICA WILL WAKE UP AND I CAN ONLY HOPE FOR MY CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN'S FUTURE, THAT IT WILL NOT BE TOO LATE!!!! "
Tom wrote on Nov 3, 2009 7:02 PM:
It's blatantly obvious that all of these people will do and say whatever is necessary to stay on the good side of Obama and his people. Journalists are supposed to be watchdogs on the government not sleeping partners. "
Oh Please wrote on Nov 3, 2009 1:37 PM:
K wrote on Oct 31, 2009 6:40 PM:
You neglected to mention MSNBC. Are you seriously trying to say that MSNBC has no bias???? If so, then....wow, just wow. When the White House is including "impartial" journalists in political strategy meetings(MSNBC), then you know they are in the pocket of the White House, yet curiously, you neglected to mention MSNBC at all. I wonder why? Is MSNBC supposed to represent your profession? If that is what you think, then you need to look no further as to why journalism is one of the least trusted profession in this country(even defense lawyers and politicians beat you...that is bad my friend).
There is a total and complete lack of perspective. You are not the watchdog of the govt, you are just another arm of the govt. Well, as long as it is the govt you agree with. How can you respect anybody that drops their journalistic "morals" like that? Where is the next Tim Russert?? I don't think there is a journalist left anymore that can stand up for what is right, even if it swings away from their personal political bent.
I am an Independent who actually leans Libertarian, so I have no love for Fox News as the be all, end all, of journalism, but at least they attempt to present both sides of an issue when it comes to allowing representatives of each side on the NEWS division(NOT the opinion side). CNN doesn't do that much anymore, so I am not really watching them. MSNBC is a joke, so definitely not watching them. What am I left with?
It is pretty simple why journalism is in a death spiral. All you need to do is look at the amazing imploding New York Times and MSNBC to see why. People do not want to pay money for the blatantly partisan garbage you see there, so they don't. They go elsewhere to try and find some kind of fairness. Wala, Fox News sees their ratings soar and NOT just Republicans, but Independents and Democrats.
The fact that you cannot see or accept that explains exactly why journalism is going the way of the dinosaur. Take off your partisan glasses and actually ask the hard questions of EVERYBODY, not just those you do not agree with.
It shouldn't be a "rodeo clown" breaking news like a 9-11 truther was working in the White House. Where were the "real" journalists? Oh yes, their hard hitting questions were being asked, like "what has enchanted you the most so far in your presidency?"
Do you need any further evidence? "
Tim Knutson wrote on Oct 31, 2009 3:42 PM:
Valerie wrote on Oct 31, 2009 1:13 PM:
randy waitman wrote on Oct 30, 2009 5:28 PM:
It was disheartening to see a stand alone attack on one specific news media outlet without a counterpoint perspective in the Herald. While it was well written, I believe that Mr Smiths' editorial was wrong or slanted on a number of points and feel it is only fair to point out that many of us do not agree with his position.
Thanks for allowing my posting. "
Bruce Stockman wrote on Oct 30, 2009 4:43 PM:
I read your opinion piece on the Fox News network with much interest. I assume that your comments are related to the evening talk shows Beck, O'rielly, and Hannity, I would certainly agree with you that if that is journalism we are in much trouble. Just like if we were to read your "opinion" article as if it were supposed to be journalism. Did you mean for your article to be journalism or opinion? Your article would be considered much the same as the programs you have a problem with. That is it presents to your readers your biases, and we all have them but we dont all own up to them. If you dont like Fox's political leanings just write your opionion on that, don't try to cover it by bringing journalistic ethics into the discussion. If it truly is about journalistic ethics, might i suggest you do a series of articles on all network "news/opinion" coverages one at a time. You could do one a week for several weeks. Perhaps you could continue this series with MSNBC next. I would like to have your commentary on the ED Schultz, Matthews, Olberman and Maddow journalistic programs. Discuss what you like about them and what you dont like. Then you can do a review of CNN, NBC, CBS and you get the picture. I think that would be a very interesting read for all of your readers. Have a great day! "