Kurtz: Some "Fox journalists" worried Beck "undermines their credibility"
March 15, 2010 5:31 am ET by Media Matters staff
From Kurtz's March 15 Washington Post column:
In just over a year, Glenn Beck's blinding burst of stardom has often seemed to overshadow the rest of Fox News.
And that may not be a good thing for the top-rated cable news channel, as many of its staffers are acutely aware.
With his celebrity fueled by a Time cover story, best-selling books, cheerleading role at protest rallies and steady stream of divisive remarks, Beck is drawing big ratings. But there is a deep split within Fox between those -- led by Chairman Roger Ailes -- who are supportive, and many journalists who are worried about the prospect that Beck is becoming the face of the network.
By calling President Obama a racist and branding progressivism a "cancer," Beck has achieved a lightning-rod status that is unusual even for the network owned by Rupert Murdoch. And that, in turn, has complicated the channel's efforts to neutralize White House criticism that Fox is not really a news organization. Beck has become a constant topic of conversation among Fox journalists, some of whom say they believe he uses distorted or inflammatory rhetoric that undermines their credibility.
[...]
Fox staffers note that veteran producer Gresham Striegel left the network after clashing with Beck and say the host has surrounded himself with loyalists from Mercury, some of whom remain on that company's payroll. (Striegel did not respond to a request for comment.) When Fox covers breaking news during Beck's hour, some journalists say, they are flooded with angry e-mail from viewers about the preemption.
Friction between opinionated cable personalities and journalists has also flared occasionally at MSNBC. But Beck has caused such anguish at Fox that some of its journalists celebrated the failure of last week's interview with embattled ex-congressman Eric Massa, which Beck pronounced a waste of time.
[...]
One thing is beyond debate: Beck provides a strong lead-in for the network's evening lineup. "The significance of Beck to Fox's bottom line cannot be underestimated," says Tyndall, the industry analyst. "Getting an audience that size at 5 p.m. is absolutely unheard of."
But that growth has come at a price, at least for those at Fox who believe that Beck is beginning to define their brand. Glenn Beck is a media phenomenon married to a phenomenally successful network, but away from the cameras, theirs is a troubled relationship.

















I am not saying this just because I would like to see FOX and Beck fail, which I do want to see...it's that Beck has "disaster" written all over him and, as is usually the case, he's going to take others down with him, leaving a path of destruction along the way.
Any Fox reporter who's upset about Beck becoming the face of the network is more interested in an inflated paycheck than in journalism.
No reporter with ethics could work for a propaganda machine.
Beck has sort of a tragic quality about him. His popularity has ascended rapidly and he frantically keeps pushing the enevelope...but I can't see Beck having the staying power to maintain that.
And Beck thrives on bad economic conditions in the USA. What happens when the economy turns around and people are more interested in taking their boats out for a spin on the lake instead of wallowing in Beckian anxiety and paranoia?
Beck, on the other hand, strikes me as stone cold crazy...and he keeps upping the ante with his rhetoric. (I think he gets high off his rants...) I honestly don't think Beck is aware that there are limits to what he can say on the air and that one day he's going to step over that line.
I've always thought that the advertiser boycott was a good idea, but poorly executed. The only thing Rupert understands is shrinking profits. Limiting the boycott to Becky alone didn't do anything to their bottom line, advertisers just moved their ads to other Fox shows. As long as FNC continues to turn a profit, there's no incentive to change anything. You might even argue that the boycott has freed Becky more than it has hurt him.
The only thing that keeps FNC on its current course is the support of its advertisers. As long as they're willing to support the content (and we're willing to buy their products), why would FNC need to change?
Becky's downfall, in the end, won't come from Fox--it will be self-administered.
And that is not the case...in spite of the impotent boycott led by mmfa.
-- Fox News lead its cable news competitors in profitability for 2009, ahead of CNN and Headline News combined, and far ahead of MSNBC. --
In 2009 FoxNews generated $623 million in ad revenue...and another $570 million in subscriber fees...dwarfing the competition.
The subscriber revenue was generated on $.49 per subscriber and they have asked for an increase to $1 per subscriber last December. I'm not going to research where those negotiations currently stand...but if successful would raise revenue on subscriber fees to over $1 billion dollars annually.
What are subcriber fees based on? Viewership. As long as Beck continues to destroy his competition in his time slot he is a valuable commodity in negotiating higher subscriber fees...rendering mmfa's advertiser boycott campaign pretty limp.
The answer is that you can't prove any damage except guesswork...while the FoxNews juggernaut rolls on.
My intent is not cheerleading for Fox...just pointing out the futile effort of the mmfa led boycott.
It was NEVER an MMFA-led boycott, and you know that.
And the topic wasn't ALL of FoxNews, but was about Glenn Beck specifically.
How do you know that if Beck hadn't lost 100 sponsors, FoxNews wouldn't have made a bunch more money? Talking about FoxNews' profits without addressing that is a lie by omission.
Though it's an interesting strategy...pounding Beck in the fist with one's face...and reveling in the fact that you're in the fight.
Btw: it's curious--not to mention weird--why you are so personally invested in the Fox News "juggernaut", as you put it. Research, stats, angry defense, etc.---all for something that's supposedly so "impotent" and ineffective anyway...
Bizarre.
Their motto might as well be ..Bush all good..Obama all bad!!
Hey, Wes, who do you think will wind up paying the increased subscriber fee? You seem oddly eager to fatten Rupert's wallet. Can you say, baa?
Of course, Fox increases their profitability by cutting corners - lack of fact-checking, not wasting time with corrections or retractions, etc.
"What are subcriber fees based on? Viewership. As long as Beck continues to destroy his competition in his time slot he is a valuable commodity in negotiating higher subscriber fees...rendering mmfa's advertiser boycott campaign pretty limp."
Wrong - cable companies pay the subscriber fees, not individual viewers - even if nobody was tuned-in, Fox (or any other network) would still get the revenue.
It is your argument that is limp - and incorrect.
Of course, he does. He's an even bigger liar than the rest of them.
Well that helps explain his constant out-of-this-world remarks... heh heh...
-- Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall) to Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway) in "Network"
Each scene in Fox News' real-life 2009-2010 Glenn Beck drama shows how prescient screen writer Paddy Chayefsky was 34 years ago.
"News" showman Howard Beale (Oscar-winning Peter Finch) was obviously mentally disturbed, but producer Diana (Oscar-winning Dunaway) had gone over the edge herself. Certifiably ratings-nuts, she and the network couldn't resist the temptation to give Beale his own show.
It's time to dust off Chayefsky's classic satire for a timely, if creepy, reshowing.
Jerry Elsea
Frank Hackett: We're not a respectable network. We're a wh*rehouse network, and we have to take whatever we can get.
Nelson Chaney: Well, I don't want any part of it. I don't fancy myself the president of a wh*rehouse.
Frank Hackett: That's very commendable of you, Nelson. Now sit down. Your indignation is duly noted; you can always resign tomorrow.
Irony, thy name is Fox News.
When Fox covers breaking news during Beck's hour, some journalists say, they are flooded with angry e-mail from viewers about the preemption.
Opps.
I can see the emails though.
"Dear Fox News. Please don't interrupt Glenn Beck while he is affirming my narrow minded world view. If you must show the news please do that only during your scheduled "news" time."
Has one been sighted?
~
I found this on Wikipedia - it's called "Journalisn Ethics and Standards". Not many of them apply to those working for Faux News.
Glenn Beck - Horse manure salesman with a mouth full of samples.
FOX NEWS has "credibility"?
Since when, Howie? Since when?
Beck's popularity speaks for itself. The truth shall set you free.
Ah, another of these "popularity = truth" types.
Don't forget that the popular view was to release Barabbas and to crucify Jesus. Or hadn't you ever read that?
By all means, keep getting your "facts" from a polytheistic heathen, Mr. The-truth-shall-set-you-free.
A general rule for those in the public eye: When your name becomes the punchline for a joke, you know your time is almost up. Beck, your clock is ticking.