|
Faux News Aired Significantly Less Time of DNC Speeches
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
Compared to other cable networks, that is:
FOX aired significantly less of Dem convention speeches than other cables
During the Democratic National Convention, which took place between July 26 and July 29, Media Matters for America monitored coverage by FOX News Channel, CNN, and MSNBC and calculated the amount of time each aired convention speeches live. FOX News Channel aired one hour and 16 minutes less of speeches from the convention live than did CNN and one hour and 47 minutes less than did MSNBC.
LIVE CONVENTION SPEECH AIRTIME
FOX CNN MSNBC
July 26 0:41 1:10 1:07
July 27 1:05 1:23 1:39
July 28 0:42 1:08 1:05
July 29 1:12 1:15 1:36
Total 3 hours, 40 minutes 4 hours, 56 minutes 5 hours, 27 minutes
The disparity in airtime on FOX News Channel versus CNN and MSNBC was attributable, in large part, to the difference in time given to speeches by the following Democratic leaders:
Former President Jimmy Carter: FOX News Channel aired just over four minutes of Carter's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired almost 14 minutes.
Former Vice President Al Gore: FOX News Channel aired 45 seconds of Gore's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired 13 minutes.
Senator Edward Kennedy: FOX News Channel aired a little more than four minutes of Kennedy's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired 25 minutes of his speech.
Ret. General Wesley Clark: FOX News Channel aired none of Clark's speech; CNN aired about two minutes and MSNBC aired almost 11 minutes.
Reverend Al Sharpton: FOX News Channel aired two and a half minutes of Sharpton's speech live; CNN aired almost 20 minutes, and MSNBC aired almost 17 minutes.
Reverend Jesse Jackson: FOX News Channel aired none of Jackson's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired approximately 10 minutes.
On the July 31 edition of FOX News Watch (FOX News Channel's weekly news program that "cover[s] the coverage"), panelist Cal Thomas (who is a FOX News Channel host and a conservative syndicated columnist) said that conservatives would "scream and yell" if FOX News Channel covers the Republican National Convention in the same manner and noted that, in order to be "fair and balanced," the coverage should not differ:
THOMAS: If cable networks do the same thing at the Republican convention and interrupt or not cover Republicans, I think the conservatives out there, especially those who are fans of this network are going to scream and yell. So if you're going to be fair and balanced, I think you have not to cover at least as much of the Republican speakers as you've not covered of the Democratic speakers.
— K.B. & M.J.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408020002
I really wonder if Faux will live up to Thomas' pledge? I really wonder if Thomas really gives a if they don't? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
A broader story can be seen here:
| quote: | view
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did news networks squander their advantage during convention or provide filter?
- DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
Sunday, August 1, 2004
(08-01) 09:58 PDT NEW YORK (AP) --
Some TV viewers might not be aware that former President Carter, Al Gore and Al Sharpton all spoke at last week's Democratic convention.
They certainly heard from Bill O'Reilly, Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthews, though.
It was a pundits convention for the cable news channels, which were on the air many more hours than the big broadcasters. To some, CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC provided a necessary filter for a staged event. Others believe they simply talked too much amongst themselves.
Asked about TV coverage of the convention, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry told USA Today: "The talking heads keep talking, and you can't hear anything."
"The notion that the (broadcast) networks have offered that they don't have to cover the convention because you can watch it on cable is actually not true," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a media research group. "If you want to watch the convention, you have to watch PBS, C-SPAN or ABC's digital channel."
The people on the podium were least visible on Fox News Channel.
While CNN and MSNBC carried Gore's 15-minute speech in its entirety, Fox looked in for one minute. CNN and MSNBC listened to Carter for 16 minutes, while Fox telecast five minutes live, somewhere in the middle of his speech.
Fox had about five minutes of Sen. Edward Kennedy's nearly half-hour speech live on the air and three minutes of Sharpton's, while the others carried most or all of them.
During the beginning of Sharpton's speech, Fox carried a taped O'Reilly interview with ABC's Peter Jennings. After providing a taste of Sharpton, O'Reilly cut away to talk to two print journalists about his own interview with filmmaker Michael Moore the previous night.
On the convention's first night, the camera trained on O'Reilly in Fox's Fleet Center skybooth while Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski spoke behind him to the convention. (None of the networks carried her speech.)
"Somebody's out there screaming about something," O'Reilly said. "I don't know what it is and it really doesn't matter at this point."
After some critics questioned Fox's short attention span for Gore and Carter, O'Reilly -- ringleader of the "no spin zone" -- explained the next night that his mission was to provide viewers with perspective rather than propaganda.
In other words: they decide, they report.
"The newspaper pinheads claim because we aren't broadcasting the speeches we're not fair," he said. "That, of course, (is) a bunch of baloney."
It's a defiant stance for a cable channel in the cross-hairs of liberal political groups this summer and the subject of a documentary, "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism," that claims Fox shows a pattern of support for the Republican agenda.
But with conventions nothing more than extended political commercials, Fox's news judgment is a necessary service, said Brent Bozell, founder of the conservative media watchdog, the Media Research Center. He said he hopes the network does the same at the GOP convention.
"I have no problem with any network saying, `We're not going to focus on the fluff that they give us. We're going to analyze this,"' Bozell said.
While not editing as tightly as Fox, CNN and MSNBC both spent more time showing its personalities talking to each other than sending reporters out to interview delegates or see what, if anything, was happening behind the scenes.
CNN's Larry King spent each night with analysts familiar to any regular watcher of his nightly talk show -- Bob Woodward, Bob Dole and George Mitchell. Similarly, Matthews moderated an MSNBC panel with Willie Brown, Joe Scarborough, Andrea Mitchell and Howard Fineman.
The notion that conventions are nothing more than infomercials is wrong, Rosenstiel said.
"They are staged events," he said. "There's not really a sense that something unexpected is going to happen. But there is still news going on. The conventions are still events where the public will change their minds."
The convention was the first chance most Americans had to see Kerry present his case for an extended period, he said. All of the networks -- including ABC, CBS and NBC -- carried Kerry's speech in full.
"In this age of 30-second commercials and eight-second sound bites, that's very significant," Rosenstiel said.
The cable news networks seemed to use the convention as a backdrop to promote their regular prime-time programming, rather than covering it, he said; and in prime time, these are all-talk networks instead of news networks.
Given spotlight roles were King and Matthews, who have the highest-rated prime-time shows on their particular networks.
Except for Thursday on Fox, the news anchor Brit Hume was kept to 10 p.m. EDT while the regular opinionated talk show hosts -- O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes, who typically lead Fox to ratings victories in prime time -- kept their perches.
There were some signs of doubt among the cable news channels Thursday; all gave considerable attention to the convention speakers warming up for Kerry.
Oddly, the strategy undermines critics who argue that ABC, CBS and NBC shirked their duty by televising only three hours of convention coverage. If this is what they're showing, who needs more?
And all the networks will likely defend themselves with ratings. The broadcast ratings were down, so network executives can point to that as proof they didn't underestimate the public's interest. Cable ratings were way up, which cable-news executives will use to indicate they're doing something right.
"Who's responsible, then, for letting the public see this?" Rosenstiel asked. "Is no one responsible? PBS does it because they think it's the right thing to do journalistically. C-SPAN is doing it because it's what they do -- they train cameras on events.
"None of the people who have access to our homes over the public airwaves feel an obligation to allow us to see the convention."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...1258EDT0496.DTL |
Boy that O'Reilly sure is a winner, ain't he? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| That's odd. I watched pretty much the whole thing on Fox, simply because I knew that they would be airing it when other networks were busy airing reruns of "The Simple Life". I'm pretty sure I saw just about the whole thing--unless the articles are talking about the countless nobodies that were speaking during school hours every day--you see, I have a job and can't dedicate my entire day to watching TV.:p |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
That's odd. I watched pretty much the whole thing on Fox, simply because I knew that they would be airing it when other networks were busy airing reruns of "The Simple Life". I'm pretty sure I saw just about the whole thing--unless the articles are talking about the countless nobodies that were speaking during school hours every day--you see, I have a job and can't dedicate my entire day to watching TV.:p |
Oh c'mon now, who are you foolin'? We all know you're really an unemployed, hippie tree-hugger who lives off the government and luuuves watchin' those reality shows nonstop!:D |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
I for one welcome the idea of state imposed news regulations to make sure everyone gets their equal share of air time. I also support the implantation of a microchip into my brain that would administer large amounts of valium to calm the rage I feel every time I learn of a new "advocacy group" whose entire reason for existance is to whine about percieved injustices.
I also enthusiastically welcome our new alien overlords. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
Most cable "news" is complete tripe, and C-Span is where it's at.
I love the Columbia U. Journalism Review btw.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/03/opinion/03krug.html
| quote: |
Reading the Script
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 3, 2004
A message to my fellow journalists: check out media watch sites like campaigndesk.org, mediamatters.org and dailyhowler.com. It's good to see ourselves as others see us. I've been finding The Daily Howler's concept of a media "script," a story line that shapes coverage, often in the teeth of the evidence, particularly helpful in understanding cable news.
For example, last summer, when growth briefly broke into a gallop, cable news decided that the economy was booming. The gallop soon slowed to a trot, and then to a walk. But judging from the mail I recently got after writing about the slowing economy, the script never changed; many readers angrily insisted that my numbers disagreed with everything they had seen on TV.
If you really want to see cable news scripts in action, look at the coverage of the Democratic convention.
Commercial broadcast TV covered only one hour a night. We'll see whether the Republicans get equal treatment. C-Span, on the other hand, provided comprehensive, commentary-free coverage. But many people watched the convention on cable news channels - and what they saw was shaped by a script portraying Democrats as angry Bush-haters who disdain the military.
If that sounds like a script written by the Republicans, it is. As the movie "Outfoxed" makes clear, Fox News is for all practical purposes a G.O.P. propaganda agency. A now-famous poll showed that Fox viewers were more likely than those who get their news elsewhere to believe that evidence of Saddam-Qaeda links has been found, that W.M.D. had been located and that most of the world supported the Iraq war.
CNN used to be different, but Campaign Desk, which is run by The Columbia Journalism Review, concluded after reviewing convention coverage that CNN "has stooped to slavish imitation of Fox's most dubious ploys and policies." Seconds after John Kerry's speech, CNN gave Ed Gillespie, the Republican Party's chairman, the opportunity to bash the candidate. Will Terry McAuliffe be given the same opportunity right after President Bush speaks?
Commentators worked hard to spin scenes that didn't fit the script. Some simply saw what they wanted to see. On Fox, Michael Barone asserted that conventioneers cheered when Mr. Kerry criticized President Bush but were silent when he called for military strength. Check out the video clips at Media Matters; there was tumultuous cheering when Mr. Kerry talked about a strong America.
Another technique, pervasive on both Fox and CNN, was to echo Republican claims of an "extreme makeover" - the assertion that what viewers were seeing wasn't the true face of the party. (Apparently all those admirals, generals and decorated veterans were ringers.)
It will probably be easier to make a comparable case in New York, where the Republicans are expected to feature an array of moderate, pro-choice speakers and keep Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay under wraps. But in Boston, it took creativity to portray the delegates as being out of the mainstream. For example, Bill Schneider at CNN claimed that according to a New York Times/CBS News poll, 75 percent of the delegates favor "abortion on demand" - which exaggerated the poll's real finding, which is that 75 percent opposed stricter limits than we now have.
But the real power of a script is the way it can retroactively change the story about what happened.
On Thursday night, Mr. Kerry's speech was a palpable hit. A focus group organized by Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster, found it impressive and persuasive. Even pro-Bush commentators conceded, at first, that it had gone over well.
But a terrorism alert is already blotting out memories of last week. Although there is now a long history of alerts with remarkably convenient political timing, and Tom Ridge politicized the announcement by using the occasion to praise "the president's leadership in the war against terror," this one may be based on real information. Regardless, it gives the usual suspects a breathing space; once calm returns, don't be surprised if some of those same commentators begin describing the ineffective speech they expected (and hoped) to see, not the one they actually saw.
Luckily, in this age of the Internet it's possible to bypass the filter. At c-span.org, you can find transcripts and videos of all the speeches. I'd urge everyone to watch Mr. Kerry and others for yourself, and make your own judgment.
|
|
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
| Is the Republican party going to have a convention as well and if that's the case when would that be? |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj_Irish
Is the Republican party going to have a convention as well and if that's the case when would that be? |
August 30- Sept. 2nd in Madison Square Garden
http://www.2004nycgop.org/
You can watch here if your TV stations don't cover it:
www.c-span.org
It looks like they are only having moderate Republicans speak though except for Bush, Cheney, Zell, and the Sec of Education who called teachers "terrorists."
Bloomberg, Giuliani, McCain, Pataki, and Arnold I would not say are representative of the Republican Party with their pro-environmental, pro-choice, and somewhat pro-gay rights views.
Arnold even has Robert F. Kennedy's son helping him on environmental issues (which is fine by me).
I'm disappointed they didn't have Pat Robertson, the Senator from my state who compared gay marriage to having sex with a box turtle, or some other lunatics speak.
The Dems at least put Ted Kennedy, Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and Dean out there, and they were not ashamed of that. |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
heh, Cheney almost looks like a nice guy on that picture :p
...almost... |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I for one welcome the idea of state imposed news regulations to make sure everyone gets their equal share of air time. I also support the implantation of a microchip into my brain that would administer large amounts of valium to calm the rage I feel every time I learn of a new "advocacy group" whose entire reason for existance is to whine about percieved injustices.
I also enthusiastically welcome our new alien overlords. |
I don't see why you have a problem with exposing the fact that Fox News spends significantly less time on the democratic convention than any other news station. It's not that anyone is proposing they should be ordered on how long they will air the convention, but their obvious bias should be pointed out. |
|
|
| tupsox |
Don't like Fox News?
Don't watch it. No one's forcing you, not even John Ashcroft.
Let's see what coverage of the Republican convention is like before we use this as a sole basis to claim bias. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tupsox
Don't like Fox News?
Don't watch it. No one's forcing you, not even John Ashcroft.
Let's see what coverage of the Republican convention is like before we use this as a sole basis to claim bias. |
Agreed, however Fox's reputation preceeds them, quite a bit actually:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Jul10.html
Or you can take a look at a handful of Fox News Editorial Chief John Moody's memos to his employees on a variety of topics, and you decide whether or not his tactics are just a tad bit right of center:
| quote: | Moody on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal:
[T]he pictures from Abu Graeb [sic] prison are disturbing. They have rightly provoked outrage. Today we have a picture -- aired on Al Arabiya -- of an American hostage being held with a scarf over his eyes, clearly against his will. Who's outraged on his behalf? It is important that we keep the Abu Graeb [sic] situation in perspective (5/5/04).
Moody on the war in Iraq:
As is often the case, the real news is [sic] Iraq is being obscured by temporary tragedy. The creation of a defense ministry, which will be run by Iraqis, is a major step forward in the country's redevelopment. Let's look at that, as well as the deaths of a US soldier in a roadside bombing (3/25/04).
Into Fallujah: It's called Operation Vigilant Resolve and it began Monday morning (NY time) with the US and Iraqi military surrounding Fallujah. We will cover this hour by hour today, explaining repeatedly why it is happening. It won't be long before some people start to decry the use of "excessive force". We won't be among that group (4/4/04).
The events in Iraq Tuesday are going to be the top story, unless and until something else (or worse) happens. Err on the side of doing too much Iraq rather than not enough. Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? The US is in Iraq to help a country brutalized for 30 years protect the gains made by Operation Iraqi Freedom and set it on the path to democracy. Some people in Iraq don't want that to happen. That is why American GIs are dying. And what we should remind our viewers (4/6/04).
If, as promised, the coalition decides to take Fallujah back by force, it will not be for lack of opportunities for the terrorists holed up there to negotiate. Let's not get lost in breast-beating about the sadness of the loss of life. They had a chance (4/22/04).
The continuing carnage in Iraq -- mostly the deaths of seven US troops in Sadr City -- is leaving the American military little choice but to punish perpetrators. When this happens, we should be ready to put in context the events that led to it. More than 600 US military dead, attacks on the UN headquarters last year, assassination of Iraqi officials who work with the coalition, the deaths of Spanish troops last fall, the outrage in Fallujah: whatever happens, it is richly deserved (4/4/04).
[L]et's refer to the US marines we see in the foreground [of pictures coming out of Fallujah] as "sharpshooters" not snipers, which carries a negative connotation (4/28/04).
Moody on abortion:
[Le]t's spend a good deal of time on the battle over judicial nominations, which [th]e President will address this morning. Nominees who both sides admit are [qu]alified are being held up because of their POSSIBLE, not demonstrated, views [on] one issue -- abortion. This should be a trademark issue for FNC today and in [th]e days to come (5/9/03).
Two style notes: [Eric Ru]dolph is charged with bombing an abortion clinic, not a "health clinic." ...[TO]DAY'S HEARING IS NOT AN ARRAIGNMENT. IT IS AN INITIAL HEARING (6/2/03).
Moody on Senator John Kerry (D-MA):
Kerry, starting to feel the heat for his flip-flop voting record, is in West Virginia. There's a near-meaningless primary in Illinois (3/16/04).
Ribbons or medals? Which did John Kerry throw away after he returned from Vietnam. This may become an issue for him today. His perceived disrespect for the military could be more damaging to the candidate than questions about his actions in uniform (4/26/04).
John Kerry may wish he'd taken off his microphone before trashing the GOP. Though he insists he meant republican [sic] "attack squads," his coarse description of his opponents has cast a lurid glow over the campaign (3/12/04).
Bill Clinton's book "My Life" may come out in time to let John Kerry have the spotlight by convention time. Then again, maybe it won't (4/27/04).
Moody on President George W. Bush:
[Th]e president is doing something that few of his predecessors dared undertake: [pu]tting the US case for mideast peace to an Arab summit. It's a distinctly [sk]eptical crowd that Bush faces. His political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day (6/3/03).
Moody on the 9/11 Commission:
The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer [sic] and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate. Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that (3/23/04).
Remember that while there are obvious political implications for Bush, the commission is looking at eight years of the Clinton Administration versus eight months (the time prior to 9/11 that Bush was in office) for the incumbent (3/24/04).
Moody on America's European "allies":
[At] the UN, Catherine Herridge will follow the US sponsored resolution calling [fo]r the lifting of sanctions against Iraq. Not surprisingly, we're facing [re]sistance from our erstwhile European buddies, the French and Germans (5/9/03).
[Bu]sh's G-8 trip is actually less important than his fledgling efforts to knock [t]ogether the Israeli and Palestinian PMs' heads. Let's keep in mind that the [G-]8 contains the most obstreperous dissidents against the war on terror. Bush [ha]s a long memory and new friends in Poland the rest of Eastern Europe (5/29/03).
Moody on what war footage to air and not air:
Five American GIs killed in Iraq in a bomb and an attack represent one of the grimmest days there in months. There is also footage of a mutilated body being dragged down a road which WE WILL NOT AIR UNTIL IT HAS BEEN CLEARED (3/31/04).
The pictures shown in the Times and NY Post today of the dead American contractors are exactly what we chose NOT to use yesterday. Please don't get sucked into this taste race to the bottom (4/1/04).
Moody on Bush's tax cut:
[Th]e tax cut passed last night by the Senate, though less than half what Bush [or]iginally proposed, contains some important victories for the administration. [Th]e DC crew will parse the bill and explain how it will fatten -- marginally - [yo]ur wallet (5/22/03).
Moody on rising gas prices:
Gas prices are at all time highs in the US. There are reasons for the surge, some economic, some mere business tactics. Remember: US prices, while they seem high to us, are a half or less the cost of gasoline elsewhere (3/16/04).
Moody on the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):
For everyone's information, the hotel where our Baghdad bureau is housed was hit by some kind of explosive device overnight. ALL FOX PERSONNEL ARE OK. The incident is a reminder of the danger our colleagues in Baghdad face, day in and day out. Please offer a prayer of thanks for their safety to whatever God you revere (and let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine) (3/24/04). |
Fox News: We Report (in favor of the Right), You Decide. |
|
|
|
|
