WaPo's Farhi lets Fox off the hook

During an online Q&A yesterday, Washington Post reporter Paul Farhi discussed Fox News at length, responding to Howell Raines' recent criticism of the media's approach to Fox. Farhi's comments demonstrate a lack of understanding of how bad -- and influential -- Fox really is.

Farhi began:

Is Raines exaggerating Fox News' clout and impact on the long and complex health-care debate? No question that FNC is the preferred choice of cable news junkies. But on a given day it reaches, what, five or six or seven million people? Given that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, a thousand daily newspapers and a million billion websites reach many, many millions more, isn't he exaggerating Fox News' influence? 

Farhi makes a mistake in assuming that Fox's "influence" is limited to the "five or six or seven million people" who watch.  In reality, Fox influences "ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, a thousand daily newspapers and a million billion websites," too -- and, thus, influences their audience as well as its own.  Farhi needn't take my word for that; he can stroll down the hall and chat with the Post managing editors and Ombudsman who have instructed the Post to be quicker to amplify the stories peddled by conservative media. 

Farhi: 

Is Raines using too broad a brush? Is there no distinction between the reporting that FNC does and the overtly partisan advocacy of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly? If so, isn't that like saying the Op-Ed page of the New York Times is the same as its news pages? 

This again?  As Media Matters has frequently documented, the notion that, aside from Fox's evening partisans, the cable channel consists of straight news reporting, is a myth eagerly promoted by Fox and credulously repeated by journalists who should know better.  Notice, by the way, that Farhi doesn't name one such source of "the reporting that FNC does" that is neutral and fair.  

A little later in the Q&A, a reader called Farhi on this myth, noting that Jon Stewart had demonstrated the similarities between Fox's "reporting" and its "opinion" shows.  In response, Farhi wrote: "The show Stewart picked on was the newish afternoon hour hosted by Megyn(?) Kelly. Pretty clear from the clips played on 'The Daily Show' that Ms. Kelly has a way to go before being touted as 'objective.'"

And a little bit after that, another reader noted that "Fox and Friends" isn't exactly fair and balanced, either, to which Farhi responded: "I wrote a story about 'Fox & Friends' some years ago. It was at the time when the hosts were cheerleading us into the Iraq war. And I use 'cheerleading' in the most objective way possible--it was practically a pep rally. I asked them about this in reporting a story; they didn't see a problem with it."

Farhi never did get around to identifying what part of Fox is the equivalent of the New York Times' news pages.  Maybe it's from 4:42-4:53 pm on alternate Tuesdays?

Farhi:

Raines doesn't seem to have a problem with MSNBC's partisanship on this issue. I'm not even suggesting there's an equivalence (because I don't know how to measure such a thing), but MSNBC's commentariat seems to have staked an ideological niche opposite Fox's.

So, Farhi recognizes that MSNBC and FOX are not equivalent, but expects Raines to express outrage about both of them?  That makes absolutely no sense, and is the kind of illogical, lazy thinking that enhances FOX's influence and tilts public discourse to the right.

Farhi:

Hard to imagine that anyone watching any of Fox's opinion shows--its most popular programs, by far, by the way--would be shocked to encounter a conservative opinion. Screaming "partisan!" at Beck, Hannity, et al, can only be answered by saying, "Yeah. So?"

So ... maybe the Washington Post shouldn't follow their lead?