Instead of apologizing and walking away, the anchor excused himself and Fox News due to error: the two clips looked a lot alike. Never mind that one of them was recently filmed footage, while the other had to be dug up from the archives.
The story now slips into the 24 hour news cycle while the majority of viewers who saw the original interview carry on with the intentionally imprinted message. Bravo.
Perhaps I'll have to write a wee bit about message imprinting and political psychology in a later post. Political Scientists take the topic for granted because it is old news; Poli Sci PhD candidates write on it almost as often as English PhD's think about putting their heads in the oven.
Original Entry Below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occasionally (every day) someone questions how Fox News could be biased for conservatives. Fox News, after all, says they are Fair & Balanced, so they must be, right?
And if bias is admitted by a Fox News supporter, the acknowledgment is usually coupled with the argument that MSNBC is biased, too, but for liberals.
I agree.
However, the angle of Fox News with respect to conservative reporting is so severe that comparison to other news channels sometimes breaks down, especially regarding Fox News' concern with fact-based reporting and malicious editing.
The following video is a prime example of both Fox News' clever editing and their disregard for fact. It is rather long, so I will recap below.
In short, before Fox News conducted a live interview with Perennial Libertarian Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, following his win at the straw poll for President at this year's CPAC, Fox News surreptitiously edited in (skip to 0:22)the scene at last year's CPAC, where Ron Paul was resoundingly booed for having won. By doing so, Fox News set up the interview so that the main topic was not why he won but rather why no one likes him at CPAC?
So why did he win this year? Probably because the majority of the audience at the announcement was raucously in favor of him (skip to 4:40). The cheering and adoration for Ron Paul at this year's CPAC was unmistakable. (The booing of Paul's win last year at CPAC can be attributed to the large amount of Romney supporters who saw their favorite come in second).
So what gives, Fox News? Why the chicanery? Well, through malicious editing and ignorance of fact, Fox News was able to actively set the tone of the interview for their own editorial desires. Namely, they destroyed any credibility Ron Paul had with Fox News viewers, a group composed of conservatives and conservative-leaning independents that might otherwise vote for Ron Paul in a real election.
The first question that may come to mind is, "But Ron Paul is a conservative, and Fox News does not eat their own kind!"
Yes they do. Especially when they are Libertarians.
Unlike his son, Rand Paul, Ron Paul has little respect among traditional conservatives for his strict libertarian views. He wants government control out of everything, whether it be marriage, drug control, or guns. He may share views with other conservatives on the right to bare arms, but his open views towards gay marriage do net exactly gel.
If Ron Paul were to be shown respect by other conservatives he might become an electoral threat to them. But Fox News was able to keep him in check for those conservative candidates they would otherwise have on the ballot. A group of candidates who, ironically, are mostly on the Fox News payroll.
Remaining questions are throwaways.
- Isn't that libel? (Too tough to prove, especially for a public official.)
- Won't Fox News get caught for clever editing? (They may, but would they care? Besides, in the 24-hour news cycle it won't stick around for long)
- Isn't what they did unethical? (Show me the rulebook for ethics in media.)
- How would Fox News answer if called on it? (Oops! Our mistake.)
- Won't Fox News viewers care about a retraction? (Um. No. Not even the ones who hear it being made live, once, from 8:41:34 AM to 8:41:45 AM)
Last, the best question of all: "But what if it was just an honest mistake?"
Sure. I'll grant it.
The producers in the editing room accidentally came upon and cued up a year-old newsreel instead of the clip produced that day and plugged it in. Same kind of argument as, "I slipped on some soap and got your mother pregnant." It could have happened.
But in the off-chance that this didn't, way to go Fox News. Keep it classy.
No comments:
Post a Comment