.
“Fair and balanced” implies that all news stories have partisan ramifications and that reports that don’t end in political stalemate are inherently “unfair” and “biased,” a fallacy to begin with. But “fair and balanced” takes that ill logic to its illogical extreme by directly implying that all other news outlets are “unfair” and “biased” by virtue of not being Fox News. The obvious truth is that “fair and balanced” is Orwellian-speak that the bigwigs use to mask the extreme right-wing bias on Fox News. The less obvious truth is that Fox News’ refusal to accept their place within the mainstream – or as they say, “lamestream” – media turns “fair and balanced” into a challenge from a perpetual underdog that is designed to defang journalism itself. “Fair and balanced” is not a feel-good slogan about bringing justice to the airwaves, it’s a corruption of the very definition of truth and an attack on the integrity of freedom of the press.
Say what you will about “advocacy journalism” in general, pretending to be an objective news outlet while actually advocating for any political ideology is false advertising and an abuse of the faith placed in the press by virtue of their constitutional right to report non-fiction (see “We Report, You Decide”). But the use of a phrase like “fair and balanced” cuts deeper than merely covering up bias. It changes the very nature of reporting itself. How many stories about the victims of Bernie Madoff can be “fair and balanced?” How many stories about hurricane victims rotting in a drowned city can be “fair and balanced?” How many stories about union employees getting drunk on the job can be “fair and balanced?” And nobody can even imagine that last story actually being fair and balanced on Fox News, or at least suggest as much with a straight face.
Do unions tell car company executives what kind of cars they can build? Or do the executives tell the unions what to build? Either way you slice it, that very principle must apply somewhere in the equation. If all journalists report stories with a liberal slant only, then Fox News stands out because those “liberal” staffers must be following orders to be “fair and balanced,” i.e., not liberal as they normally would be. But if Fox doesn’t dictate editorial policy to its staff, then it cannot be possible that all journalists report from a liberal slant only, since Fox News journalists are allegedly “fair and balanced.” And if it’s not true that all journalists only report liberal stories, then the consistent liberal bias Fox News allegedly perceives on other news outlets must be a product of orders from some imaginary liberal overlords of some kind, because their bosses are uniformly conservative. Which of those scenarios makes the most sense? Neither, right?
Because reality is that everyone has a boss in the media, until you get to the very top of the food chain, and when you run out of people who report to other people, you’re looking at corporate elites across the board. The people who set the tone, establish the editorial policy, place the midnight phone call that squelches an embarrassing story, and whisper the subtle intonations that people in favor of Medicare-for-all shouldn’t get all that much air time, are the corporate oligarchs who own and run the top media empires in America.
.
“Unlike other networks,” says Mr. O’Reilly, “we’re not rooting for anyone.” “Only one is fair and balanced,” says the disembodied voice of authority with the same inflection as an announcer at a wrestling match. This isn’t an appeal to trust in the credibility of the reporting, it’s a trailer for a political thriller. And their constant claims of bias in the non-Fox news media, coupled with the “fair and balanced” slogan/accusation, is yet another of the many ways Fox commits journalistic sabotage. Fox News has unapologetically given money to conservative causes, nakedly promoted the Tea Party movement, and cut away from political events that make conservative ideology look bad. There can be no mistaking the right-wing bias evident on Fox News among people who aren’t blinded by partisan rage or dependent on corporate largess. “Fair and balanced” isn’t for those people. It isn’t designed as a marketing tool to draw new audience in. It’s designed to be a rationalization for the loyal audience they already have and a Pavlovian response that can be used to deflect criticism… or drive critics insane before they can win the argument.
.
It takes a tremendous amount of faith, or the innocence of a child, to believe in a corporate slogan, like “you’re in good hands” or “the ultimate driving machine” or “made from the best stuff on Earth.” Most of the time, American consumers are skeptical of corporate slogans and their hyperbolic promises (“Red Bull gives you wings”) but Fox loyalists actually spout a corporate slogan as though it, in itself, is proof of the veracity of the content on the channel. Can anyone imagine trying to suggest that the Chevy Silverado really is “like a rock” or that either Sprint or Verizon is truly the “nation’s most reliable network?” Of course not. But many of those same skeptics throw their skepticism aside when it comes to “fair and balanced.” It is the only corporate slogan on Earth that is actually regurgitated by some people for the purpose of identifying the one thing everyone already knows about the brand – the slogan. No other slogan is taken so seriously, not even Nike’s mostly innocuous “just do it,” which is easily converted into joke material by the infirm.
.
The surest sign that propaganda is working is when people start repeating it verbatim as though it were an established fact. “Fair and balanced” is exactly that kind of propaganda – short and sweet, and tuned to the ear of the loyalist. And all of this would still be true if Fox never told a single lie, never once blurred the lines between news and opinion. Even if they were completely straight as a truth-telling news organization, the slogan constitutes a corruption of the relationship between the press and the public. We’ve all been told the phrase at one time or another, “nobody ever said life was fair.” And real journalists understand that and go after it, because injustice is the red meat of the news business. But Fox pretends life can be fair, but only on Fox. So while they sell a fantasy of fairness in their slogan, they simultaneously dismiss its existence everywhere else. And while this is a common marketing technique in advertising circles, it’s always based on hyperbole and rarely taken seriously by consumers. Everyone knows that the contents inside the box never look half as good as the picture on the front.
When people are assaulted by propaganda and choose to believe something else anyway, that’s called “audience agency.” We, as our own independent “agents,” make our own decisions despite the influence of media. Advertisers know this and do everything they can to convert audience agency into sales – like the Pepsi Challenge or the lifetime supply of coasters everyone received in the mail in the form of AOL install discs. “Fair and balanced” is designed to squash audience agency – don’t believe anything you hear anywhere but Fox because they’re the only ones telling truth. Nobody would believe a stranger who walked into a bar and said “I know the truth and nobody else does.” So what does it tell us about an audience that does believe essentially that same statement coming out of Fox News? Audience agency demands skepticism in the face of self-appointed righteousness, and “fair and balanced” separates those with agency from those without. The slogan is the demographic – those who tune in and believe in the slogan will believe anything else Fox says because they already took the first, and most difficult, leap of faith when they chose to believe a corporate slogan. So the next time someone says to you “Fox News is fair and balanced,” a good retort might be, “and Red Bull gives you wings.”
danny bloome
March 16, 2011
The Evolving Psychology of Bloggers vs. Journalists Calls for a New
Word to Describe Those Who Report News and Opinion and Features on
Both Paper and Online Platforms:
My Virtual Talk at South By Southwest on March 15, 2050
BY DANNY BLOOM, 1949-2050
This is what I virtually said at South by Southwest in Austin, March
15, 2050. It went swimmingly well.
Many thanks to Jacky Lin for helping with the tech and the
backchannel. You can find a live blog of my presentation here. Audio
will be available in the future. Here’s the official transcription.
Here’s The BBC’s summary.
Six-six years ago I wrote an essay called ”We Need a New Word for
Bloggers and Journalists In Order to End the Civil War Between Them”.
It was my most well read piece at the time. And it made the points you
would expect: This distinction was eroding. The civil war was absurd.
Get over it. Move on. There’s bigger work to be done. So I called for
a new word. Not many people answered the call, alas. And we are still
searching for that elusive word. Sigh.
And while the division –- bloggers as one type, journalists as another
– made less and less sense, the conflict continued to surface. Why?
Well, something must be happening under the surface that expresses
itself through bloggers vs. journalists. But what is that subterranean
thing? This is my real subject today.
And to preview my answer: disruptions caused by the [lowercase now]
internet threatened to expose certain buried conflicts at the heart of
modern journalism and a commercialized press. Raging at bloggers was a
way to keep these demons at bay. It exported inner conflicts to
figures outside the press. Also –and this is important– bloggers and
journalists were seen to be at that time as each other’s ideal
“other.”
In a now-faded New York Times Magazine, the alawys avuncular and
amiable Bill Keller acted out a version of bloggers vs. journalists.
He ridiculed aggregators like the Huffington Post and poked at media
bloggers (including Clay Shirky and Jeff Jarvis and Jay Rosen) for
producing derivative work that was parasitic on news producers.
The queen of aggregation was, of course, Arianna Huffington, who has
discovered that if you take celebrity gossip, adorable kitten videos,
posts from unpaid bloggers and news reports from other publications,
array them on your Web site and add a left-wing soundtrack, millions
of people will come.
Of course the Times snailpaper did aggregation, too. When it reviews a
book or play that’s a derivative work. This is my point: There’s
something about bloggers vs. journalists that permits the display of a
preferred (or idealized) self among people in the press whose work
lives have been disrupted by the lowercase now internet. There’s an
attraction there. Spitting at bloggers is closely related to gazing at
your own reflection, and falling in love with it all over again.
For people in the press, the bloggers vs. journalists civil war was an
elaborate way of staying the same, of refusing to change, while
permitting into the picture some of the stressful changes mentioned. A
shorter way to say this is: we need a new word that encapsulates both
what print reporters and online bloggers do, one word that can fit
both of them. Could it be “medialista”? Or another word that might
come down the information highway any day now?
Thank you for your attention.
Reply danny bloome says:
March 16, 2011 at 1:50 am
“Medialista” – provisional new word for journalists, reporters,
editors, bloggers, aggregators
Bill Keller is a medialista at the New York Times.
David Pogue is a medialista at the New York Times.
Maureen Dowd is a medialista at the New York Times.
Nick Bilton is a medialista at the New York Times.
Ashelee Vance is a medialista at the New York Times.
Kara Swisher is a medialista at AllThingsD.com.
Peter Kafak is also a medialista there.
Thomas L Friedman is a medialista at the New York Times.
John Schwartz is a medialista at the New York Times.
Jay Rosen is a medialista who teaches at NYU.
Tracy Record is a medialista in Seattle.
Andrew Sullivan is a medialista par excellence.
Our hearts go out to medialista extraordinaire Christopher Hitchens.
Tamlin Magee is a medialista in London.
Journowatch
March 16, 2011
While I’m sure you meant to credit Jay Rosen for having created the template for your discussion in 2050, I imagine we can bend the etiquette and deliver it after the fact here. The transcript of Jay Rosen’s talk at SXSW in 2011 can be found on his blog.
I must also disappoint you by mentioning that Jay’s blog is named “PressThink” for exactly the reason you violate with the word “medialista.” You might want to consider a word that uses “press” at its root. And personally, I think “medialista” sounds a bit… I dunno… bondage-y. Want some leather with that package? Just sayin…
Interesting list, though. Thanks very much for the comment.
Mejarmole
March 16, 2011
Here’s a great example from across the pond of Murdoch’s idea of ‘fair and balanced’ reporting
http://bit.ly/hYI40c
Journowatch
March 16, 2011
Nothing surprises when it comes to Rupert Murdoch. The sky has been a shade darker in Blighty since he bought The Times. Sad.
Danny Bloom
March 16, 2011
Hi, Mr Westlake….. yes, guilty on all counts, my post WAS an homage to Jay’s very good talk at SXXS and his pressthink blog post is what inpsired me the other day to start thinking about some ways to help put the civil war betwen bloggers and journalists to an end. Peaceful end, since i am a man of peace. I admit medialista sounds a bit eccentric and even bondage-y at first hearing, and it;s not my word, it was sent to me by a friend on FB, from Brazil, and i thought, well, this is a good place to begin…..Of coruse, if a new word does come down, if will come down naturally and organically and not because some lone blogger in Taiwan pushed for it……But i just wante dot get a discussion going, worldwide, and maybe later the word we are looking for might RESULT from all this meshagus…. i am an out of the box thinker. I also call reading on screens as “screening” and i also call E books as Frankenbooks…..and i also believe that future MRI and PET scan studies will show the reading on paper is superior brain-wise to reading off these damned screens, and that paper reading is superior for processing info, memory and analysis…..of course, nobody agrees with me, but watch. My hunch will be proven true when Gary Small and others at UCLA complete their MRI studies on this issue. Screening is coool and trendy and ocnvenient, and i love it 24/7……from my wireless cave here in taiwan where i do not even own a computer,,,,i am at the email cafe now…..but PAPER READING is superior to screening and woe is us when my hunch is proven correct……a whole computer screen industry will be in jeopardy…LONG LIVE PAPER.
Danny Bloom
March 16, 2011
and yes, PRESS vs MEDIA, i think in your good comments at Jay’s blog i saw that mentioned, and i agree. i like the words “newsman” “newswoman” and “pressman” “members of the press…” and an old fashioned print paper partisan…..but i also welcome bloggers too and i blog, of a fashion, although i would not call myself a blogger. i am more of an eccentric old fool…..SMILE….if ever want to chat offline, i am online 24/7 at danbloom AT gmail
Journowatch
March 16, 2011
Brazil? Now it makes sense! (And by that I mean it sounds better to a salsa beat.) And, hey, don’t underestimate the power of a simple idea, no matter where it comes from or how small the source. That’s what it’s all about.
I agree with you on the paper vs. screen issue but mostly on a physical level – eye strain, etc. However, there’s little doubt that physical changes in how we read can have an impact on how we process the information. The results of a study like that will be of great interest to a lot of people.
The one thing you, Jay and I agree on for certain: a war, overt or covert, between press and “bloggers” (however it’s being defined) is silly and counterproductive for everyone.
Thank you for the kind words and interesting comments.
danny bloom
March 16, 2011
Thank you, sir, for understanding this aging eccentric cave-dweller in Taiwan who left the USA in 1991 for a simpler life in Asia, but who keeps his eye on the USA 24/7 via the whole schebang of online platforms, not to mention the NYTimes Weekly Edition delivered to my door in paper format once a week. Can’t live without that!
And yes, may the civil war cease. No more carping, no more ambushes, no more
attacks one side against the other. We are all in this together. Print people need to see this, and also bloggers. It’s not us versus them, it’s all of us together trying
to peer into the future. What will it be?