UPDATED: Baltimore Sun TV critic can't figure out how Fox News is different from MSNBC
October 29, 2009 10:16 am ET by Eric Boehlert
The Sun's David Zurawik has made quite a splash online in recent weeks as he relentlessly attacks the White House for criticizing Fox News and calling it out as illegitimate. While defending Fox News, Zurawik claims the fact that White House aides have an opinion about Murdoch's faux news channel means administration officials are attacking journalism across the board; that critiquing the press now represents a chilling campaign of intimidation.
Zurawik has trotted out the comically inaccurate Nixon's "enemies list" comparison, and generally laid on the rhetoric quite thick: "This campaign by the Obama administration is dangerous to press freedom, and it should concern everyone in the press, not just Fox."
Last night Zurawik was rewarded for his pro-Fox News campaign, in which he completely ignores the "news" product produced under its name, and was invited onto The O'Reilly Factor, where he and the host were in heated agreement that the White House's decision to fact check Fox News was insane. (How original.)
On O'Reilly's show, Zurawik also hit his latest talking point that Fox News is just like MSNBC, and if the WH is critiquing Fox News it ought to take on MSNBC for being unprofessional. We've seen this lazy analogy a lot in the last couple weeks; because MSNBC has a couple liberal hosts, that means its around-the-clock product is exactly the same as MSNBC. Except it's not, which I previously noted:
I don't remember either Olbermann or Maddow comparing MSNBC employees to persecuted Jews during the Holocaust, which was the twisted comparison [Glenn] Beck recently made regarding the Fox News staff.
In other words, I don't recall Olbermann or Maddow going bat shit crazy on national television, scribbling away on a chalkboard as they fantasized about connecting George Bush to every conceivable strain of historical evil. And I don't remember either MSNBC host launching hateful and hollow witch hunts against semi-obscure administration officials, the way Hannity has latched onto the homophobic attacks against Kevin Jennings.
But for Zurawik, because MSNBC plays hosts a couple liberal talkers, it's just like Fox News. Of course, MSNBC also devotes its entire morning programming to a show hosted by conservative, former Republican member of Congress, but Zurawik doesn't address that fact; Zurawik can't point to the daily Fox News show that's hosted by a proud liberal.
But since the TV critic is so sure that MSNBC is just like Fox News, I'd like him to back up the claim. Last week, I produced this cheat sheet for the WashPost's Ruth Marcus and ABC's Jake Tapper *after both seemed to imply that Fox News was similar to MSNBC and ABC News, respectively.
But here's an example of how the Fox News family isn't quite like MSNBC. Here's another another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another.
If Zurawik is so sure MSNBC is just like Fox News, than he ought to produce a similar, detailed list showcasing obvious examples of how MSNBC has walked away from the traditions of mainstream journalism and has purposefully pushed falsehoods, lies and smears under the guise of news. I'm not looking for Zurawik to explain that Olbermann and Maddow lean left. Everybody knows that. And the White House isn't attacking Fox News because it leans right.
The White House is attacking Fox News because it no longer functions as a legitimate news org. I'd like Zurawik to match my two dozen examples above, most pulled from 2009, and show everybody how MSNBC is just like Fox News.
Good luck.
UPDATED: Earlier this year, Zurawik attacked MSNBC this way [emphasis added]:
Even Rachel Maddow, who is the nicest, with her snide smile and arched eyebrow and mocking, they target people and hold them up for ridicule. It's exactly what happened in propaganda in the '30s in Europe. I'm not kidding you.
But today, Zurawik, a media critic, defends Fox News.
UPDATED: Ironic. From last month:
*I updated the original language, which claimed ABC' Tapper had insisted Fox News was "just like" ABC News. That was too literal. Instead, Tapper last week wondered if it was "appropriate" for the White House to suggest Fox News was not legitimate, and pressed White House spokesman Robert Gibbs to explain how Fox News was "any different" from ABC News.
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
You'd think that if they were going to provide just a couple of examples, those would typically be some of their strongest examples of similarly offensive behavior.
But their examples fall flat.
There are not comparable examples from MSNBC with regard to the issues we raise with FoxNews - the lies, distortions and omissions they push out. These flaws are not simply present in their opinion shows, but they also bleed over into their news programs. These problems are systemic and pervasive and show FoxNews to be a corrupt political enterprise. That's not what a news organization is supposed to be, and that's not what MSNBC is.
Go back through all of the occasions in which Fox has (oops we're so sorry it was just a typing error) put up a chyron listing which mistakenly mis-identifies the party affiliation of a Congressperson or legislator who had done something wrong or really stupid?
If you did, I'd be highly surprised if you didn't quickly determine that the number of times that in which the "error" winds up benefitting Republicans (by, for example, indicating that David Vitter (D) was found wearing diapers in a room with a hooker even though he is a Republican)happens far more often than when the error benefits a Democrat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you just can't teach a old conservative new... well, anything really!
It's not just Fox, the Washington Times, Scaife, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Increasingly it's all of them. We've been grumbling and critiquing for several years (foor decades if you count Chomsky and Nader, which we should) and the direct of movement has been the opposite of what we've asked for.
MSNBC Compares Obama to Nazis!
From Keith Obermann special comment to Obama on torture:
"It is our intention," you said today, "to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution." Mr. President, you are making history's easiest, most often made, most dangerous mistake — you are accepting the defense that somebody was "just following orders."
Is there anything in the FOX archives remotely like that during the Bush years? Truth is, K.O. and Rachel have done a number of take downs on the Obama admin that have somehow gotten by the (ho-ho) TV critic of the Baltimore Sun
What actually matter is the other 21 hours on Fox and 22 hours on MSNBC (I'm ignoring re-runs of the prime-time shows, which both Fox and MSNBC have). MSNBC has some non-news programming so we need to set that aside. So with what's left, there is no reasonalbe basis for equating Fox and MSNBC.
MSNBC is a straight, old-line news organization. It just is.
Fox is a cheerleader; literally a cheerleader for the right (tea parties, town hall meetings, 9-12, etc.). Actually, no offense to Media Matters, which does an outstanding job, but to post the 20 or so examples of Fox's antics so dramatically understates the situation to the point where people make wrongly assume those are ALL the transgressions. They simply are not. It's pervasive. It's continuous. It's in the stories they choose to cover, the stories they ignore, and most importantly the tone and perspective from which they cover them.
Here's proof of the pudding: tune into even their comedy show (Red Eye). Even this show presents a far-right POV. It's incredible to watch. Ditto for the morning show (which is supposed to be a light, non-partisan gabfest).
So Mr. Zurawik, Mr. Tapper and Ms. Brown, you clearly are not watching the same network I watch. And I do watch it religiously, in amazement at the brazenness in which they say with a straight face that 1) they are fair and balanced and 2) MSNBC is a bunch of loons.
Completely disingenuous and offensive.
And Mr. Obama, your press secretary's invitation to "watch Fox News at 5 or 9" completely misses the mark. Those shows are offensive, nasty, etc., but I suppose "within their rights." It's the rest of the day that proves the point.
And one more thing: it's not just the news segments. Pay close attention to the bumpers, teases, tune-in spots, etc. throughout the day, many of which direct viewers to Hannity. I don't see the NY Times on page 1 directing their readers to the Op-Ed page.
So, what is motivating Tapper, Brown and Zurawik? It's simple. They want to stand out, seem like a renegade, not falling in line, etc. But if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. And that's the unavoidable truth.
I'm amazed when people try to argue that MSNBC is the left's version of Fox. There is no comparison and I support the challenge and extend it to the trolls on this site to give examples of Maddow or Olbermann pulling the same stunts or telling the same kind of lies as the Fox counterparts do. The most grievous sin most trolls point to is Olbermann's Worst Person segment in which he lampoons the right using their own words.
As for Maddow, she's untouchable. She's done more detailed fact-based reporting on everything from health care to K Street than most legit news organizations combined. If there is any justice, Maddow will win a Peabody for her work.
Thanks for your post, Bill.
Apart from coming from different sides of the political aisle, the main difference between msnbc and fox is that the latter gets double or triple the ratings. .. ., a fact that annoys the hell out of whiners like eric and uberdouche. . .
This has been explained here multiple times - you really are a slow learner, aren't you?
For your sake I hope you're good looking. I'd hate to think you're relying on your brain (using that term generously) to get by.
The number of viewers directly influences the "debate of the issues. . ." If so few are watching, then Fox's coverage is influencing the debate with only so few people. If more are watching, then the coverage influences the debate with more. . . Can that logic seep through your thick skull.
Nonetheless, you're absolutely correct in your post below. Foxnews can do whatever they want, and cover whatever stories they want. As they say, "[they] report, we decide."
And the FOX "News" tag line should be "We Distort, You Comply". That's basically what they do.
In any event, she's not the dumb one.
If Pongo really wanted to hijack a moniker from P.G. Wodehouse, he really ought to do someone with the sweetness of Aunt Agatha or the tremendous intellect of Lord Emsworth. No good can ever come of arguing with such a buffoon.
Your sense may be common among Fox fans, but hopefully it's rare among normal humans.
Keith Olbermann
Rachel Maddow
Ed Shultz
Chris Matthews
David Shuster
Tamron Hall
Mika Brzezinski
Lawrence O'Donnell
You get credit for the first three.
If you think that Matthews is a liberal, you've obviously skipped a lot of evidence to the contrary that a quick search of this site will show you. Do your homework before coming in with warmed-over opinions that have been shot down hundreds of times before.
If you have evidence of the liberal stances of the other four, feel free to provide them. You didn't even try the first time.
So, the tally is +3 and -6; that's a pretty poor job, HW. Better luck next time.
Much of Fox's influence is viral, a contributor to and a product of the general dumbing-down of the country.I live in a pretty conservative area, and what I see is people who don't read papers or credible websites, and watch a lot more sports than news on TV, but get most of their political info from right wing emails and word-of-mouth.
Fox is just one tentacle of the right wing machine, but to the gullible,they look like a legit news network, and they reinforce everything the uninformed and lazy American hears at the knitting club or at the bar.I know some real life Fox Fans. They're very outspoken, as confident as they are misinformed, and they love to pass along the gossip that passes for news o Fox to anybody they meet.
Fox depends on the passivity of people who don't like to think, but can collect just enough information to pretend they have an informed opinion.
Isn't Media Matters fronting as a 'non-partisan' 501(c)3 organization?