Back in the “good old days” as our parents and grandparents sometimes like to call the era before cable television, the three major networks had the news on three times a day, once in the morning, once around noon, and once at night. These networks held the responsibility of maintaining a well-informed populace, even including some of the less viewer friendly/harsh realities, such as broadcasting the Vietnam War (technically considered a conflict rather than a war, but that’s an article for another day).
The explosion of the television news field has led to a demand for faster, better information at all hours of the day. Thankfully, with modern technology it is easy to have these things, at least one would assume. The issue here lies with Fox News and stations like it. There are multiple reasons why myself and others have our doubts about believing Fox, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s media take-over, as a credible source for news.
In order to understand one of the main issues with Fox News, one needs to understand its predecessors. Beginning in 1949, the FCC instituted something called the Fairness Doctrine, this policy was implemented to ensure adequate coverage of public issues, as well as to ensure that coverage fairly represented opposing views. This basically meant that if a political issue was presented, representatives of at least two views on the subject had to be present and contributing. This made sure that those watching could form opinions and perhaps develop their existing opinions through hearing the other side. However, the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987. Fox News was launched nine years later by Rupert Murdoch and Republican party strategist Roger Ailes.
Now that we know the origins, the faults with Fox may become clear. The fault lies not only with party alliance and political ideology, though the delivery of such ideology is definitely part of the issue, but with the very thing that allows national network news to even exist; ratings. As much as we would like to believe that news stations are altruistically seeking to inform and update the public, this is not the case. All news networks are after gaining a larger viewership, which garners ratings, which will increase the value of advertisements on the channel. Without a substantial amount of viewers, businesses and corporations are not going to want to waste money on advertisement.
Viewers = ratings, ratings = advertising revenue, therefore viewers = $$$. One thing Rupert Murdoch is certainly in pursuit of, as evinced by his other shareholdings.
Seeking money is not a condemnation in and of itself, however, taking this interest in profit into consideration, it is easier to see why some claims made by Fox News Network may be trumped up (pun intended) or delivered before verification. People want their news, they want it fast, and they don’t want it to conflict with their core belief systems.
This is what leads me to explain confirmation bias and how it can be detrimental to society at large. Oxford Dictionary online defines confirmation bias as “the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs.” Though this bias makes a lot of sense, it actually hurts people’s perceptions of the world around them. To reinforce one’s beliefs is also to “disprove” the beliefs of others, despite any factual evidence. I’m sure people watching MSNBC have a totally different sense of confirmation bias. But this article is about Fox, and that’s for a reason.
Of all the network news stations, Fox is the most guilty of breeding fear and distrust among people of varied backgrounds. If we wish to advance our society in any way, this is a seriously bad thing. This is not intended to be an attack on the beliefs of the Fox correspondents or their viewers, but rather on the one-sided nature of their reporting.
Without exposure to differing perspectives, which may actually do a better job of reaffirming one’s beliefs, people become stagnant and unwilling to take part in discussions.
Fox News and its viewers not only partake in a singular sense of biased reporting, but this reporting is subpar at best. Many of the claims are backed up by facts that have since been retracted, or statistics simply pulled out of thin air to confirm what the reporters are claiming. A nifty website which takes an unbiased stance in evaluating the claims made by various network news professionals ranks claims from “true” to “pants on fire,” is http://www.politifact.com/punditfact. This site lists that only 17% of claims made on Fox are “true” while 48% are false and 15% are “pants on fire.” This is in comparison to the arguably liberal network NBC, where 40% are true or mostly true, and 5% are “pants on fire.”
Lastly, Fox News perpetuates a system of debate that is less about discussion and development of thought, and more about smug superiority and shouting matches. The “panels” they assemble are radicals on either side, with a moderate thrown in to bully. Without providing a more middle of the road option for unsure viewers to identify with and learn from. Fox presents the view it holds as correct, not up for debate, and frames those that disagree as unintelligent. This presentation of (mis)information is making us as a country less intelligent and less open to intelligent discussion.
Fox News is guilty of perpetuating the worst stereotypes of the American Republican Party and American ignorance. Through pure ignorance and intolerance they have helped to create a populace that is unwilling to listen and to learn, and just stay with their feet firmly rooted in the past. It is okay to watch this station to get some perspective on the views of its correspondents, but I recommend additionally watching competing stations to form a better-rounded world view and to be able to decide for yourself where your political allegiances lie.
