As if we needed more proof of Fox News’ bias…

June 1, 2005

Part of me believes it’s just overkill by now. Fox News Channel is a Republican outlet — the network knows it, its viewers expect it, the rational world takes it for granted. Sure, FNC will make half-hearted denials on occasion and pretend to care about defending a “fair and balanced” charade, but the evidence is so overwhelming, it’s hardly worth talking about anymore.

Having said that, most of the proof is plainly available on the television screen, not from the network’s actual pronouncements, which makes Slate’s Tim Noah’s discovery a little more interesting than the last can-you-believe-what-Hannity-said story.

As Noah reported yesterday, Scott Norvell, Fox News’ London bureau chief, accidentally told the truth in an op-ed published about a week ago in the Wall Street Journal’s European edition. Novell wrote:

Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O’Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren’t subsidizing Bill’s bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don’t enjoy that peace of mind.

Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That’s our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The [BBC’s] institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.

That’s about as close to an on-the-record, in-print admission of bias from a current Fox News official that I’ve seen. He doesn’t literally say, “We’re a propaganda outlet for Republicans and right-wing American nationalism,” but he doesn’t have to. In context, he’s contrasting the BBC’s “leftism,” with the FNC, which, in Norvell’s words, is “quite open” about its ideology. What’s more, as Noah argued, Norvell is clearly arguing that Fox News’ bias is less offensive than the BBC’s because FNC is “a private channel.”

To be sure, this is not a shocking admission; Norvell was merely acknowledging a fact that few could reasonably question. Still, it’s nice to see a Fox News official own up to its bias and lack of objectivity like this. The network has no credibility when it comes to serving as a reliable news source, but it’s good to hold onto examples like Norvell’s to remind its defenders why FNC’s image isn’t going to improve anytime soon.

If they are disclosing their programing as ideologically driven, then there is no bias. Bias is a tilt toward an opinion when one presents themselves as “fair and balanced.”

They don’t do that anymore, do they? If not, no bias.

  • >>If they are disclosing their programing as ideologically driven, then there is no bias. Bias is a tilt toward an opinion when one presents themselves as “fair and balanced.”

    Where did you come up with that self-serving definition Chuck? My dictionary doesn’t contain your caveat.

  • Forgive me if I missed some sarcasm here, but…

    The existence of bias has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it’s openly acknowledged. To use your words, bias is a tilt toward an opinion. Period.

    Are you suggesting that if I publicly admit to being left-wing radical that I’m then, by definition, not biased?

    Or is it only if I admit to being a right-wing radical that I can’t be accused of being biased?

  • Speaking of the “leftism” of public media, this morning’s Seattle P-I had a nice little letter:

    There are ways to balance the programs we see

    So Kenneth Tomlinson, chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, wants to bring more balance to public television. I have some suggestions:

    Balance “Wall Street Week” with a show about the conditions of workers, maybe hosted by OneWorld or Oxfam International.

    Balance “Serious Money” with a show featuring non-profits such as Human Rights Watch or the Natural Resource Defense Council.

    Maybe “The McLaughlin Group” could be balanced with a discussion group peopled by the Center for American Progress, MoveOn and True Majority with a token conservative.

    There are lots of possibilities.

    Anita Fieldman
    Seattle

  • “Are you suggesting that if I publicly admit to being left-wing radical that I’m then, by definition, not biased”

    No. I’d say you have an opinion or an agenda. Generally, when speak of press bias, the definition leaned on is, “systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others”.

    The implication is that the “news” should be presented as sans-opinion when it, in fact, encourages one point of view.

    No one ever would accuse Rush or Franken as “biased.” They don’t aim for news. They aim for opinion, agenda, and entertainment.

    Calling Fox biased is wrong. It implies that they try to be even keeled. They have an agenda.

  • Sorry Chuck, but while Norvell may have made his little admission the Fox News motto is still “Fair and Balanced” and they still in general try to claim that’s what they are.

  • Gee, you think we should push for Fox News to have an ombudsman or four to ensure a truly ‘fair and balanced’ approach like Mr. Tomlinson’s model for CPB/PBS?

    Nah……they’d never go for that.

  • And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren’t subsidizing Bill’s bombast;

    Fox “News” is a nonoptional part of my basic cable package. I either subsidize Bill’s bombast or I don’t get cable at all. Not much of a choice there.

  • The fact that Fox is biased isn’t necessarily the problem, the fact that they call themselves a “news channel” is. News reportage should inherently be without a preordained perspective, nor is its intent to advance a specific agenda. To be accurate, the should call themselves the “Fox Political Hack Network”, “Fox Right Wing Propaganda” or maybe the “George Bush’s Media Lapdog”.

    The phrase “Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally,” shows how much they fear open dialogue. Only when you know your point of view is complete BS would you be scared of contact with differing opinions.

    • Comments are closed.