Ignore Fox: Attacking O’Reilly Only Encourages Him

I was at the opening party for the Fox News Channel, in a studio complex carved out of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp headquarters on Sixth Avenue in just 16 weeks. I wanted to videotape the event but we were denied access and had the only crew outside, a distance from the entrance, to document who was there. I was surprised that top network anchors including Barbara Walters and Walter Cronkite were among those who responded to the fancy invite to pay respects to the Evil Empire and what we all then thought would be, as advertised, a News Channel.

Not long afterwards I was back to cover a protest rally during the 2000 election with Mark Crispin Miller and other speakers—I may have been one of them–berating the biased coverage of the election later won or stolen by George W Bush, depending on your point of view. A Bush cousin was actually a leader of FOX’s election night team and is credited with quickly calling the election for W who, in the end, “won,” it is said by 537 votes. (That is if you forget the uncounted and invalidated ballots.)

The protest was hardly a major event—and not covered by anyone but Fox. In fact, Fox “topper” Roger Ailes put up a “Welcome Protestors” message on their electronic headlines sign, and sent interns out with coffee. He knew what we didn’t—that Fox deliberately courts controversy, welcomes it, needs it, and uses it as a way to mobilize its target audience—the rightwing GOP base—by projecting the perception that FOX was successfully pissing off the dreaded “liberals.”

It was a deliberate and ultimately successful strategy. It was part of the shift in our media away from the pretense of objectivity into being a deliberately politicized and polarizing political organ, an arm of right wing politics and a tool to reinforce right wing policies in the GOP and Administration. We saw how the whole media spectrum, not just Fox, later rallied viewers behind the war on Iraq - many channels then sought to “outfox Fox.”

It quickly became clear that FNC was not a News Channel but a Views Channel—more precisely, a One View channel. All the debates and controversy were engineered into a format modeled on right wing talk radio to attract audience and assure an impact. This intent was obvious to insiders in the TV industry but missed by many critics who have spent endless time and energy in denouncing Fox and its star Bill O’Reilly for not being what they never set out to be.

Fox was created to be agenda driven, ideologically oriented and spin-directed. It has borrowed its formats from TV’s most successful format, wrestling, which is scripted to generate more heat than light. Many of the news and opinions expressed on talk radio or Fox News have little to do with “facts” or truth.

In a polarized political environment, we have moved into a world where facts are selective “message points” only used to buttress arguments. At a time when the fact-based information order has been largely replaced by a “faith based” system, viewers believe what they hear or see based on their identification with the news outlet or a news personality they trust.

In many cases, so-called “enhanced” media is being used to mobilize “friendlies” to use “their facts” to pressure politicians to vote their way.

But what’s been the response on the progressive side? To build their own media capable of doing on the left what the Foxoids are doing on the right? Nah. Support independent media outlets or new approaches to news? Nope. With some exceptions thrown up by commercial media — the rise of comedian Jon Stewart who is not a journalist, the emergence of a sports reporter turned political commentator Keith Olbermann, the performances of a libertarian comic named Bill Maher on HBO, or a comedian and failed talk show host Al Franken on Air America, and maybe the financing of the Huffington Post which just hired a CBS network executive to run it — there has been no attempt to build a competing network. Meanwhile, little has been said about the rightward drift of PBS. And why are independent perspectives only allowed when comedians utter them?

Bashing Fox and O’Reilly only encourages them. It feeds right into their strategy. They love it. And so, it seems, do many on the left who would rather rant against Fox and Big Bad Bill then examine the newsflow on the big netwoks. For example, who protested 60 Minutes adoring portrait of Clarence Thomas last Sunday? Is O’Reilly a racist is the latest go-around. It diverts us from important issues and understanding—and attempting to change media AS A SYSTEM.

So we have had endless go-arounds on O’Reilly’s latest contrived spat over comments about eating at a Harlem restaurant. There have been acres of endless articles about this non-event, even on the Mediachannel.org site I edit. It seems as if it is an easier subject to mouth off about than more important issues. Al Sharpton must love it.

But with what end? These accusations just encourage O’Reilly to pose as a victim of character assassination. They don’t influence the fans he panders to. The Chicago Trib’s Clarence Page, maybe the leading nation’s Black columnist, asks, “Does ignorance about race make you a rascist?”

He then answers his own question: “No, ignorance about race might not make you a racist. It only makes you ignorant. That’s why I think Mr. O’Reilly deserves a break. When someone is ignorant, you should try to teach him. Instead, a lot of otherwise good-hearted, fair-minded and charitable people want to tar and feather Mr. O’Reilly.”

I have no love for O’Reilly’s patented shtick, and ignorant he’s not. He is also not educable. He’s not a racist or a humanist or a journalist—just a political propaganda tool. He knows exactly what he’s doing and how to play the larger than life TV role that he created. He can be challenged intelligently, but why bother? I was even interviewed by him once and did OK.

Bashing Bill gets us exactly nowhere. Criticizing him legitimates him, and turns a loudmouth loser into a lionized personality. Trust me, his agent—he is in show biz, not news biz—cites all these attacks as evidence of his importance when negotiating for a higher salary. His goal is to stay in the limelight so he can get higher lecture fees and book advances. And in this respect, the left has become his best friend by taking him seriously. The more he taunts, the more progressives respond without realizing they are being used.

So let’s ignore him, and tune out his blather and well-calculated outrageous commentary. Let Fox Be Fox. Let’s keep an eye on what they do. But recognize there is not much critics can do about them. We need to build and support our own media.

Before he played in the network big leagues he was a baseball pitcher in the minors. Pitching himself is now what he does best. Let’s not play along in a game we are set up to lose.

– News Dissector Danny Schechter edits Mediachannel.org. His latest film is In Debt We Trust (Indebtwetust.com). Comments to dissector@medichannel.org

Popularity: 2% [?]

As the author of one of what you call “acres of endless articles about this non-event” — the one that appears on Mediachannel.org site — I obviously couldn’t agree less! When the views expressed on the ‘Fox Views Channel’ are racist, they MUST be confronted and attacked, each and every time — and certainly not ignored, as you suggest… Not to call attention to, and to call out, such racist attitudes and remarks — particularly when they emanate from a high profile public figure with daily access to millions of viewers and listeners — is to condone them implicitly. I’m frankly amazed and distressed that the author of this article — as a longtime activist for equality and human rights — would recommend that such attitudes and statements instead be “ignored!”

Why in God’s name do the left politicians and pundits appear on Fox News at all?

Then they are reminded by Hannity, O’Reilly, etc., that the democrats take this “blood money” from George Soros.

Then they fail to respond by questioning the “blood money” the GOP get from Rupert Murdoch, who funds these perennial liars who do his dirty work on Fox News.

Are they really that naive, or are they afraid that they won’t be asked back on to get insulted by those morons again?

I just said the other day to my mother. People like O’Reilly and Rush live off this kind of publicity.

It is time to ignore them and pray for a la carte cable so we can get them off our cable packages. ;)

I couldn’t agree more with “Ignore Fox”, and I’ve been doing it for years myself: Goebbels already knew what that FOX guy (what’s his name again?) knew: as long as they keep talking about me, it doesn’t matter if it’s bad. I was covering the Take Back America conference this summer, and during a break a woman by the coffee counter asked me what I thought of the latest outrage that guy had said… I asked her “who’s that?” She looked at me, like I’m one of those crazy Europeans who don’t get it, but then she caught on, laughed, and said: “I’m gonna try that!” I sincerely believe there is only one answer to whatever anybody tells you about that guy: “Who? Don’t know him and don’t want to.” Apart from any other reasons, ignoring nonsense saves you a lot of time and aggravation!

Here I thought his blather was a cry for help. A reason for press EMT’s to study psychology and treat those who cry for first aid.
You’re right he’s beyond our ability to help.

Put me down as another one who disagrees, respectfully, with the premise of ignoring Faux Noise and Mr. Falafel et al.

This is the network that allowed Mr. Mission Accomplished to occupy the Oval Office TWICE, despite the fact that he never actually won an election, had all the votes been counted and minority and military votes not caged.

This is the network that beat the war drums so hard that all the other networks felt the need to march in lockstep (goosestep?) so as not to be labeled traitorous and unAmerican. This has resulted in the nearly 4,000 deaths of American soldiers and untold deaths of innocent Iraqi men, women and children, not to mention those millions who have fled the bloodshed and have now become War Refugees.

You can no more ignore a bully on a schoolyard playground than you can Faux Noise. A bully doesn’t ‘get it.’ He’ll just wait for the next time you’re alone and stiff-arm you all over again for your lunch money.

One doesn’t have to use the same bully tactics, but one must never (IMO) simply ignore these fascists.

With all my love,
Aunty Em

“Then attack (Bill O’Reilly) cause I rap this way,
But I’m glad cause they feed me the fuel,
That I need for the fire to burn and it’s burnin’ and I have returned”.

Apologies to Marshall Mathers

What’s the matter, can’t you and your Democrat friends stand the heat. In the liberal show of the media today, O’Reilly and the staff at Fox are the only ones giving the American Public a true picture of what is happening in IRAQ. I know it must peeve you as well as other news outlet, that Fox is No. 1. Should tell you something aboutthe American Public. By attacking O’Reilly and Fox, you’ve condemn yourself. You are a left leaning liberal attack group that will demean or defame anyone who has the courage to face up to you and others who are presently doing more to destroy this country efforts to protect themselves against terrorist and those who would bring harm this country. One of your shallow attempts among others is trying to convince the American Public that you support our troops in Iraq while you and the Democrats are doing all they can to destroy their confidence and efforts to complete the job. Why don’t you merge with Move-On. Org and show you true colors.

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links: