More Proof Fox News Winning PR War With White House
We’ve written about the winner (at least after this latest round) in all the Fox News vs. White House battling – and it’s the “fair and balanced” network.
As the week goes on, others have weighed in on which side’s strategy is prevailing as well.
Hal Boedeker writes in the Orlando Sentinel about the White House “complaints come off as whining,” while U.S. News & World Report’s Doug Heye describes it as a “riskier strategy – to ostracize and attack a media outlet and its viewing audience.” PRNewser’s Joe Ciarallo asks if the White House made the move because “Fox News is the one critic that is too big to ignore?”
Here’s some thoughts from the Columbia Journalism Review:
The administration is not only glibly ignoring the substantial disconnect between Fox’s reporting and its pundit-ing; it is also implicitly suggesting that the viewers in question don’t deserve anything but propaganda. Otherwise, wouldn’t the White House, rather than simply alienating the network and leaving it to its wretched nefariousness, redouble its efforts to reach out to Fox’s audience.
John Batchelor at The Daily Beast agrees FNC is winning the PR war, but thinks it’s wrong for the White House since FNC is less relevant than they think. “Fox News is not in the news business; it’s in show business,” he writes. “The Republican Party, like its blood kin the Democratic Party, is in the campaign business. The White House is in the government business, though, from the evidence so far, it doesn’t know how to break out of the campaign business.”
TVNewser put it to a poll – and while you may expect the readers on the right to sway toward FNC and those on the left to go for the White House, 84% chose, “These tactics backfire. And Ailes knows how to fight.”
Meanwhile, as expected, this is only helping FNC in the ratings. Last week FNC ranked #4 in prime time on all of cable (in total viewers) and #6 in total day. This was the 40th consecutive week FNC finished in the top 5 in prime time. CNN was #29 in prime and #26 in total day, MSNBC was #23 in prime and #31 in total day.
—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter
13 comments
It blows my mind that White House officials attack from the their podiums instead of appearing on FNC to debate the issues. This has to be the dumbest PR strategy since Nixon’s enemies list.
schmoe says: The definition of “Winning the PR War” is key. I don’t think increased ratings is necessarily a win. If the network is deemed by most to lack credibility, than their reporting will be taken more for entertainment value than truth. News makers will be able to respond, “that is just Fox News reporting” to any Fox News reporting.
Possible conversation in the future…
person a: I heard in the news yesterday that Obama new [insert initiative here] does [insert negative attributes here]
person b: Did you hear that on Fox News or a regular news network
person a: Yea, it was Fox News.
person b: Well that explains it
person a: yea.
Nachi says: No wonder. Americans have long feasted on anger, hatred, bitterness, ignorance, jealousy, untruths.
FX serves up these dishes to the rancid masses unendingly. But never quite enough to quench the appetite.
Kevin says: Schmoe, your conversation example will work for an idealologue but not for someone who understands there are two sides to every story. There are people out there that aren’t tied to one political party and can separate a dishonest view from an honest one. Fox has a better distribution of liberals, independents and conservatives than any other cable network. That speaks volumes for what people view as honest or not.
Nachi, doesn’t your description fit MSNBC to a tee? I can’t think of a more hate-filled network than they were over the past eight years. Do yourself a favor and watch Olbermann, Maddow, Mathews, Hannity, Greta and O’Reilly and see how many democrats appear on Fox and how many republicans appear on MSNBC. Wouldn’t that be one gage of honest reporting? I’ve watched both and the comparison isn’t even close. Another gauge, count the “name-calling” on each and you’ll quickly understand the depth of MSNBC.
Isn’t it also odd that only one network is deemed as critical to the president? The media is supposed to provide a checks & balance on power. Wouldn’t the proper story be “why is only one network providing a checks & balances on this administration?”
schmoe says: “not for someone who understands there are two sides to every story”
Yes, as a viewer I would expect a news outlet to cover all colors to the stories (many there are more than 2 sides), and equally important, without using false equivalences. However, I have no such expectations with Fox News. I expect the “other” side of the story to be either
- not mentioned,
- defended by a weakling (Alan Colmes)
- defended by a fringe lunatic or polarizing person (Cindy Sheehan/ Janeane Garofalo)
- or be falsely represented (ie present an easily defeatable straw man argument (Dick Morris))
Also, you can have biased news reporting while competently presenting both sides of the story by only discussing and debating stories that help your side and avoiding stories that hurt your side:
“Mondays episode – Is Obama a muslim”
“Tuesdays episode – Does Obama hate the US”
“Wednesday episode – Is Obama rascist”.
“Thursday’s epsidoe – Why does the media have a liberal bias”.
You can also cherry pick the liberal guest with somebody that – while usually progressive – may have a sympathetic conservative view for topic under debate. Joe Lieberman for the Iraq war. Hillary Clinton towards the end of the primaries when many Democrats wanted her to concede her candidacy.
Kevin says: schmoe, I think someone from the far left might view Fox that way and someone from the far right will likely view ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and many newspapers the same way. I still think the makeup of the viewers (left, right, independent) speaks volumes and right now, Fox is watched by a broader audience. The extremes on both sides are mostly irrelevant as their slant is ridiculously biased to the point of being dishonest.
Jelperman says: So this “proof” consists of the say-so of right-wing concern trolls? I’m so surprised!
libra blue says: If the White House believed everything they say about FNC then they would be jumping at the chance to confront them face to face, but they don’t. They are cowards. Instead they get news organizations like CNN and MSNBC to fight their battles for them. Anderson even had a panel on discussing it last night.
The problem with the people criticizing FNC is that they always bring up O’Reilly, Hannity, & Beck while ignoring the fact that it has the best news shows on the air: “Studio B,” “The Fox Report,” & “Special Report.”
schmoe says: They are confronting them face to face, against the recommendations of every media expert. That is what this whole p/r war is all about.
schmoe says: Kevin, I think someone from the far right might view Fox as equally to the right as the other networks are to the left. But I don’t think anybody else would agree.
Kevin says: “But I don’t think anybody else would agree.”
The viewership says otherwise. If Fox was a far right network, they would only have a far right audience; they don’t.
Not allowing administration officials to appear on Fox is nothing short of childish and an indirect slap at the credibility of the other networks to do any investigative analysis. This is just another example of Obama using one of Saul Alinsky’s rules of radicals. That’s not what I expect from this administration. They need to grow up. If they can’t face up to Fox, how do we expect them to stand up to Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and other thugs? If I was a producer with SNL, I would have a field day with this topic painting the administration as insecure on all of their positions…..taking “planted” softball questions from the media.
I can’t tell who sounds more ridiculous, those who defended Bush regardless of topic or those who defend Obama regardless of topic. To me, this is indefensible and expected from Chavez, not Obama who campaigned on transparency.
schmoe says: I don’t see viewership numbers as a measure of partisanship.
I have two media requirements of the president:
a) Appear often on a variety of question/ answer shows, as opposed to just speaking engagements where no questions are allowed.
b) Appear on different networks, as opposed to picking a favorable network that lobs soft ball questions. (aka Dick Cheney and Fox).
So long as the prez does (a) and (b), I don’t have a problem with him ignoring one network. If he starts ignoring multiple networks, yea, but one network that constantly promotes right wing talking points, why reward them.
“I can’t tell who sounds more ridiculous, those who defended Bush regardless of topic or those who defend Obama regardless of topic.”
That is a bit out of left field. Defending Obama on this topic does not equate to defending Obama on any other topic. But in general, I agree, defending a person in your preferred party regardless of their actions is foolish. Glenn Greenwald’s blog deals with that today.
ImNotBlue says: schmoe says:
October 14, 2009 at 12:37 pm
I don’t think increased ratings is necessarily a win.
A not all together surprising sentiment, but IMO misguided… but for a very specific, although not always obvious, reason. Common rational on blogs such as this, is that FOX News is in the politics business… they’re not. They are, just as every other television network, in the ENTERTAINMENT business. Therefore, yes, better ratings ARE a win. They area business, and as such, seek to make money… not policy. Politics and news is what they DO to make their money, but politics and news is not their goal. Again, this is the same across the board for every news outlet.
Often on sites like this, and in discussions like this, we conflate ratings for political influence… and they are not one in the same. Ratings are a sign of business smarts and financial success. Content drives ratings, and can be connected as such… but don’t confuse the “assumed political goals” of a network, with the actual financial goals of a business.
However, I have no such expectations with Fox News. I expect the “other” side of the story to be either
I gather from your examples, you don’t watch FOX… or you’d know what you’ve said is bogus. I’d suggest you stop reading the blue-blogs for info about FOX, and turn on the television. The disconnect is quite remarkable.
So long as the prez does (a) and (b)
You think Obama’s been on networks where he hasn’t gotten “soft balls?” Really? Which interviews were those?!
Job hunting?
Use our proprietary jobs tool to access the largest pool of jobs aggregated from around the country.
The Seven Best (Or, Somewhat Memorable) Moments Of The Jay Leno Show
After 95 episodes, the epic failure known as The Jay Leno Show airs its final episode tonight. Of course, Leno himself will be back after the Olympics, comfortably at 11:35pm all over again. Which was pretty much the problem to begin with - the 10pm offering started as a similar product to the Tonight Show, and only became more like the old format as time went on.
Stephen Colbert: ‘Sarah Palin is a F***king Retard’
The usually reliable Keith Olbermann's inability to nail Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin on Limbaugh's use of the term "retard" has been pretty frustrating. Sure, he has posited Palin as a hypocrite, but several times he has repeated Rush's and Palin's dueling assertions that he was "quoting" Rahm Emanuel, or that he was being "satirical," without really challenging it. Luckily, Stephen Colbert actually knows what the word "satire" means, and deployed a pile of it on Palin and Rush last night.
More TV headlines:
»Creepy George W. Bush Billboard Asks Minnesotans: “Miss Me Yet?”
»Obama’s Nobel Prize Money? It’s Still Waiting For Him To Claim »11
»Enraged, Maddow Explains ‘Racist History’ Tea Party Is Embracing »40
»Bill O’Reilly Defends Fox News News VP Who Gave His Tea Party Opinion »19
»Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart Fail to Eviscerate Sarah Palin »12
-
Coming soon...
-
Coming soon...
© 2010 Mediaite, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives | 
RSS
