FNC internal memo raises questions about bias…
The Huffington Post obtained an internal FNC memo which on its face reads pretty ideological and certainly will cast doubt about the objectivity of the network in covering the War on Terror and the Democratic control of Congress. (via Romenesko)
If there’s a reasonable explanation for how a memo like this can be equated with being “Fair and Balanced” I’d like to hear it. Even if it can be explained it’s pretty stupid to write something like this up this way. When you’re a target like FNC is you don’t want to hand your detractors ammunition on a silver platter like that…
Olbermann will have a field day with this…
SHAME!
Comment by Terance — November 15, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
Hmmmmmm…..vs airing snuff films for terrorists?
Comment by spiffo — November 15, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
Also about as objective as repeatedly running a “broken government” mockumentary a week before the election. VERY objective.
Comment by spiffo — November 15, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
Spiffo, FNC just paid terrorists two million dollars! You do the math.
Comment by Terance — November 15, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
Yes Terance, you’re right… FNC should have let their two innocent employees be beheaded. That would be have been much better… you bone head.
As for the memo, much of it reads to me like just a memo reminding people to focus on ALL the issues at hand… and cover them from an angle the other networks won’t. ARE the terrorists excited over the dems… why? What does that say for our future… for their future… for terrorism in general? The dems said their strong on terror and the people here seem to agree… but what about our enemies?
But more importantly… how did HuffPo get this ‘memo’? Who’s the memo from? Who’s the memo going to? If it’s from Hanity’s producer or John Gibson’s producer to their own staff… well than sure they might be looking for an angle. You guys can’t jump to conclusions so fast… gotta sit and think for a minute. Sheesh.
Comment by ImNotBlue — November 15, 2006 @ 1:04 pm
“But more importantly… how did HuffPo get this ‘memo’? Who’s the memo from?”
Yeah, let’s ignore the real issue and focus on the leak. You learned that Rovian lesson well.
Comment by Arthur — November 15, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
Arthur, ever hear of critical thinking? I think we all learned a lesson from Rathergate. Well, most of us….
Comment by spiffo — November 15, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
ImNotBlue, actually I would of settled for FNC telling their viewers about how they gave two million dollars to terrorists. Personally, I don’t have a problem with it since innocent lives were saved.
Comment by Terance — November 15, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
I’m surprised anyone actually needed “proof” that Fox is biased!
Comment by Mike — November 15, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
Biased toward the truth.
Comment by spiffo — November 15, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
To Spiffo: I guess you believe in the Easter Bunny too?
Comment by Mike — November 15, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
As for the memo, much of it reads to me like just a memo reminding people to focus on ALL the issues at hand… and cover them from an angle the other networks won’t.
Which sounds like bias to me. This isn’t some rogue producer or freelancer’s writing. This is John Moody.
Now maybe it was something of a pep rally type agenda memo to encourage the staff…there certainly is language in the memo to suggest as much…but to an outsider’s perspective it sure as heck makes FNC look guilty of some of the things that left wingers have argued for years.
For proper context I’d love to see some of Moody’s other memos talking about daily coverage to compare this one to. Maybe the colorful language and phrasing present isn’t atypical for a Moody memo? That would go a long way in my opinion to clearling FNC of bias charges regarding this memo.
Unfortunately I don’t have anything to compare it to and nothing to rely upon but my gut. And my gut tells me that regardless of the motives, no matter how you slice it, it makes FNC look bad. You’d think after what happened with Carl Cameron and the bogus Kerry story that FNC would have learned to be more disciplined about internal copy and less whimsical. Guess not…
Comment by Spud — November 15, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
Spud: Goos analysis.
Given that John Moody formerly was a big shot at Time Magazine, not exactly a bastion of conservativism, something here doesn’t add up.
Comment by Ira — November 15, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
Personally I watch Fox constantly and wonder how anyone can call them biased. They have so many fanatical left-wing liberals on their programs it makes one wonder if they are leaning the other way. You will not see any conservatives on Keith Olberman’s show or for that matter, anyone who disagress with him. Don Imus now has mostly his radical friends on and David Gregory, who has his own agenda. Hardball is nothing but Chris Matthews spewing one-sided opinions. Do you think Jack Cafferty, Miles O’Brien, John Roberts, and yes, even Wolf aren’t biased? There is no merit to anyone’s argument that Fox doesn’t tell both sides of issues. Have you watched Hannity & Colmes lately? Granted, Alan Colmes is a poor example of someone speaking for the liberals and I don’t think they even want to claim him but every single night they have both sides to issues and if Colmes can’t articulate his arguments too bad for him. It is always gratifying though to see Fox the Number One cable news channel so that tells us something, doesn’t it?
Comment by sophia — November 15, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
“Given that John Moody formerly was a big shot at Time Magazine, not exactly a bastion of conservativism, something here doesn’t add up.”
You better examine the kerning then.
Comment by Arthur — November 15, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
No, if Colmes can’t articulate his arguments too bad for US! Do you really believe it’s an accident that their token “liberal” is not particularly articulate?
I’ve heard this argument that they present “both” sides so many times it literally makes me sick. The MODERATOR, be it Hannitty, O’Reilly, etc. are mostly right wingers, and they seem to always talk down to and over the so called “left wingers” that appear on their shows, and then get in the last words.
If you are yourself a right winger, it is not a surprise that you are never going to see this bias, but if you are center left, as I am, it is obvious….and very annoying.
Comment by Mike — November 15, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
Forgive me if I don’t see the bias in the memo. Hello. The entire Islamic world IS celebrating the Dems victory. Just read the statements from the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, from Hezbollah, etc.
FOX didn’t make this story up. It exists. The entire jihad movement is thrilled and think they’re about to win. That is not a good thing for us.
Comment by bigred — November 15, 2006 @ 3:06 pm
Libs just can’t stand it that they don’t control ALL media outlets anymore, as they did in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s. No more being force-fed the DNC party line from dinosaurs like Kronkite, Rather, Brokaw and no more being told how to think by out-of-touch-with-the-people left-wing elitists at CNN or the commies at NPR. We get BOTH viewpoints now, and WE decide.
Comment by spiffo — November 15, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
Mike, get your barf bag ready…….
This really irks me, and for the life of me I cannot understand this whole “Fox is biased” issue. The only thing I can come up with is that the MSM is SOOOOOOOOOOOO off to the left that anything that does NOT line up with what they are reporting and the crystal clear agenda they are pushing gets labled biased towards the right. So all of you people here, Stud, Mike, etc. who claim Fox is biased then I suggest you start standing up and claiming the same thing about CNN and MSNBC. Or wait, is it NOT bias because it is in line with what you believe? Bias is bias no matter what side you fall on.
Do I think Fox is biased? I will admit that the memo is questionable, but I don’t feel that it is as bad as some are making it out to be. People will spin what they want. Sadly, objectivity is hard to come by when news and politics is involved. If presenting both sides or if having more right leaning anchors makes you an outlet for the Republican party, while interviewing and having Dem’s as consultants makes you bias, so be it. No one will ever convince any Fox hater otherwise nor a Fox lover.
Comment by jerziegrl — November 15, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
Juan Williams, Mort Kondrake, Jeff Birnbaum, Neil Gabler, Maura Liasson, and Greta are hardly meek, stuttering liberals. They get their points across, but they get little traction because they’re just WRONG.
Comment by spiffo — November 15, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
jerziegrl:
You people keep claiming that WE won’t admit some of the media is biased to the left as we say Fox is Biased to the right. NOT SO! I believe MSNBC might be a little biased to the left (although it does have two reasonably conservative prime time anchors). However, MSNBC is more anti-war than anything else, and some folks seem to be confusing that with Liberalism. Being pro war is NOT a conservative principal….never was, never will be! I believe CNN is pretty much right down the middle (as much as it is reasonably possible). That leaves Fox as the conservative AND Pro - war network.
Comment by Mike — November 15, 2006 @ 3:55 pm
What’s the problem? As others have stated above, the insurgents and alQaeda are THRILLED that the dems have won, as evidenced by the statements they made after the election, praising those Americans who voted for the dems. It’s not like Fox came up with some off-the-wall concept; the hypothesis that the dems would be supported by terrorists was in fact true.
And Colmes is VERY articulate in wording his positions; it’s just that he is wrong.
Why doesn’t anyone ever attack MS-DNC (Rush’s new term for the lowly placed cable net). It leans left MUCH further than Fox leans right.
Comment by Missy — November 15, 2006 @ 3:55 pm
Mike,
Of course you believe that because, as admited, you are a center left. I think CNN is far, far, far from being right down the middle (airing terrorist propaganda and “Broken Gov’t hardly qualifies them being in the middle) and MSNBC is right there with CNN. BUT, I subscribe to more right leaning ideals. So, in all fairness, it is all about what you believe. You are always going to think I am wrong and vice versa. I hardly constitute your statements as taking a stand against the MSM’s bias.
One of the few things Fox has got going over the others is that they present both sides (got your barf bag?) and lets the viewers decide what to believe. CNN and MSNBC think all Americans are idiots and need to be force fed the news and therefore bows to their “truth”.
You can believe that Fox is pro-war. There is nothing I can say that can convince you other wise. I think you are wrong. What I think is more wrong is that it is just fine and acceptable for the media to bash Rep’s and the right and push the liberal agenda all they want, but God forbid, any person or any one TV outlet present the other side they get criticized. Hypocrasy at it’s best.
Comment by Jerziegrl — November 15, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
I see very little difference between Fox News and Olbermann, they are just opposite sides of the coin. It’s why I avoid them both. I think that Dan Abrams seems to think that if they become the Anti-Fox that they’ll gain viewers but this is one viewer who has become completely disgusted by their programming lately.
Comment by Alison — November 15, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
So the “terrorists” have “flip-flopped” again. Typical liberals! Of course it has been widely reported that Bin Laden hoped the tape which was “released” on the Friday before the 2004 election would ensure that the best recruiting tool he ever had was re-elected. But since Bush and FOX told us before this year’s election in no uncertain terms that the terrorists were for the Democrats (and “San Francisco values”), it must be true.
Comment by museglet — November 15, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
Arthur: Besides Moody’s liberal background, we have an anonoymous post on Huffington and then a link with Romensko, both left-leaning websites.
That is why I am skeptical.
Comment by Ira — November 15, 2006 @ 4:55 pm
Jerziegrl:
You made a very reasonable post and I don’t really disgree with most of it. None of us will ever be able to fully agree as to what constitutes left, right, or center coverage.
That said, I have been listening to the charge of “liberal media bias” for at least 20 years now….long before Fox News, MSNBC, or even before CNN really got going. For me, it got a little tiresome to keep hearing that charge over and over again. It sounded a lot like whining to me. I only brought this up because of your comment that implies Liberals are claiming it is not acceptable to take the position of the right, but Ok to take the position of the left.
Excuse me, you guys have been complaining about this for many years, and now seem to be objecting because we point it out from the other side. Actually BOTH sides are pointing fingers at each other about this issue, and BOTH sides are at least partially right.
It was common knowledge that Fox was founded with a mission of countering what they saw as a “Liberal” mainstream media, and the expression “fair and balanced” used to be considered a joke for that reason. Its just a little funny to me that so many people have now come to believe that it is true.
Comment by Mike — November 15, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
You see no difference between O’Rielly and Fox? You have got to be kidding! I cannot stand Bill OR but he has people on every single night with differing opinions than his. Name one person Keith Olberman has ever had on who differs with him or is conservative-leaning. You cannot. Check out OlbermanWatch and they keep a running list of his guests and not one has ever been on with a differing opinion than his so he doesn’t have to worry about articulating his stand on anything.
Comment by sophia — November 15, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
Ira, This guy’s memos have leaked in the past, and it’s the same old tune each time. As far as his working for TIME magazine, Brit Hume was at ABC News for decades, and ABC is hardly a bastion of conservatism. Hume is very conservative, however, and he talks about it in interviews.
Comment by Trudy — November 15, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
Sophia:
Another comment I keep seeing is that Olbermann does not have differing opinions in his interviews, and O’Relly does. I say….SO! These shows are what they are and thats not necessarily a bad thing. I personally do not ever want to see all of the shows turn into clones of each other. They all have their place and their fan base, and the more informed among us will keeping checking them all out, at least occasionally.
Comment by Mike — November 15, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
By the way Sophia, since you mentioned Olbermann’s articulation,. I think he is pretty much unmatched in that department. Debate is another matter entirely, and why he avoids it, I’m not really sure.
Comment by Mike — November 15, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
Fox news is the video-journalistic equivalent of the National Enquirer. A bridge implosion in Tennessee and a brawl involving pee wee football parents were apparently the top stories yesterday, if you go by the number of times this “news” footage was repeated.
Comment by Wildwood Flower — November 15, 2006 @ 7:21 pm
Mike, Olbermann may be “articulate”, but he is way too verbose. I doubt whether anyone but his most loyal fans care to stick around to hear any points he may be trying to make.
Comment by Missy — November 15, 2006 @ 7:34 pm
“I doubt whether anyone but his most loyal fans care to stick around to hear any points he may be trying to make.”
You know, I don’t even WATCH Olbermann, but I can read the ratings same as anybody else. He’s eating Paula Zahn’s lunch.
Comment by Arthur — November 15, 2006 @ 9:03 pm
Gee, beating Paula Zahn, there is a huge task. That isn’t something I would be bragging over. It doesn’t say much for Olby. His only real competition is BO and Olby can’t even get half way there.
Comment by jerziegrl — November 15, 2006 @ 9:21 pm
WTF! How sold the idea that terrorist want dems win? All around the world wanted a BUSH LOSE! Anybody in the room know something about that the world think about Bush? No one in this world appears suppor Bush policy in the stupid named “War on terror”… This is ‘cause in Middle East, Latin America, Europe and around the world we are in party one week later. And yes… this is the end of the world for Fox News! They need to change their propaganda about Bush or will be die in the ratings…
Comment by Rodrigo, EBRmx.com — November 15, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
No matter what spin you put around this article, it makes FNC look bad and nothing will change that. While I admit to watching the network more than others, you can’t honestly say their coverage is perfectly “Fair and Balanced”. On a regular basis, you have shows with attacking, yelling, bold Republicans then soft worded, decent debating Democrats. How’s it fair and balanced to, for example, put Colmes against Republican shoe-licker Hannity?
Anyways, Spud is on the spot on his comment
Comment by Chris — November 15, 2006 @ 10:27 pm
“Another comment I keep seeing is that Olbermann does not have differing opinions in his interviews, and O’Relly does. I say….SO! These shows are what they are and thats not necessarily a bad thing.”
You have just defined bias. No big deal not to have anyone on with a differing opinion or another side of an agument??
You make my point.
Comment by sophia — November 15, 2006 @ 10:51 pm
Uh…anyone fathom what Rodrigo is blathering?
Comment by spiffo — November 15, 2006 @ 11:30 pm
No Sophia, I did not make your point at all! In fact, you missed mine entirely.
Olbermann does NOT need to run a show that is vitually a clone of O’Reilly’s, or anyone else, nor did I claim that Olbermann’s show is not biased….what I said was - SO WHAT IF IT IS! I fully understand that it is biased (as is O’Relly’s in it’s own way), and I fully approve of this type of bias in this. I watch many shows that do include spirited debate….and I watch Olbermann’s. All the shows simply do NOT have to be formatted the same way in order to have merit, nor would that even be a good idea. Many of us do not care to hear Keith arguing with Ken Mehlman. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
Got it now?
Comment by Mike — November 15, 2006 @ 11:36 pm
Trudy: I believe you are referring to a memo(s) that Moody wrote either during or after the fall of Iraq in 2003.
So if Moody writes daily to the staff and slants to Republicans twice in a period of 3 1/2 years (having written a total of about 900 internal memos) it is no proof of anything! I’d love to see his other 800+ memos
Chris: I basically share your opinion of Hannity. The election is over, the Dems won and Murtha may be House Majority Leader. Overall, it is not very important, really “inside baseball” stuff. Get over it, Sean!
Rodrigo: Your logic matches your spelling!
Comment by Ira — November 15, 2006 @ 11:59 pm
O’Reilly’s “Talking Points” tonight was all about “San Francisco Values”, so maybe the terrorists will be moving there.
Comment by museglet — November 16, 2006 @ 12:26 am
spiffo, he’s just another foreigner who hates our country and our President. I wonder where we’d all be if we had to depend on HIS COUNTRY to defend the world!
Comment by Missy — November 16, 2006 @ 2:08 am
The memo is there for all to see and make their own decision. I doubt any of the 43 comments before mine has changed any minds. If I’m wrong, and your mind has been changed, put it up here!
I would just like to say something about the “Fair and Balanced” motto:
First off, “Fair and Balanced” does not mean equal time for all views. It also does not mean that the people arguing each side will have equal success arguing their point. “Fair and Balanced” means that FNC will be open and honest about bias, and they will try to somehow represent each viewpoint/show all sides. This will be done in different ways on different shows.
The most important part of the motto is being open about bias. Those of you watching Lou Dobbs will never hear him admit that what he is saying is biased; but it is! It’s his opinion!
I’m sure John Moody is biased about lots of things; so am I. And I think looking for angles the others aren’t covering is admirable. Most issues have more than two sides.
Comment by erljr — November 16, 2006 @ 4:14 am
Ira, This guy has slanted to the far right in ALL of his leaked memos, more than two, not in two memos in a three and a half year period, the way you chose to write it.
Comment by Trudy — November 16, 2006 @ 9:51 am
Missy: You people need to get over the crazy idea that it is our job to “defend the world”.
Comment by Mike — November 16, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
Re: Bias —
Sure, O’Reilly “debates” with those who disagree, but he certainly hand-picks his opponents, and the reason he does so is that shouting down his opponent is his strong suit. Meanwhile, Olbermann’s strong suit is the diatribe. They both go with their strengths.
I wouldn’t argue against MSNBC being the liberal “anti-FNC.” But when it comes to bias, what viewers really need to do is go to YouTube or wherever and view news stories about Iraq from 2003… the Fox News stories are such obvious propaganda and so utterly wrong in retrospect. We just didn’t know enough about what was happening in Iraq in ‘03 to call them on it. Meanwhile, the skepticism in CNN or network news reports was seen as being (at best) liberal bias, or (at worst) unpatriotic. Looking back, we now know that their skepticism was correct. In short, [what was called] liberal bias turned out to be way more factual and accurate than [choke, cough] “fair and balanced” reporting at Fox.
Iraq is but one example, but the strongest, especially since it’s the nail that Bush hung his neo-conservative presidency on. So who turned out to be right about Iraq? Don Rumsfeld or Ted Kennedy? Bush or Howard Dean? Sean Hannity or Bill Maher? (Tip: Iraq is actually not going that well.)
Comment by racqueteer — November 16, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
Oh yes, one more thing — I noticed several people in the comments that are called liberal who aren’t: Mort Kondrake is the most hilarious example. Mara Liasson is another (she was shocked that someone called her “the liberal” on Hume’s Fox News panel. Chris “Nobody but Crazy People Dislike Bush” Matthews is a third. This demonstrates the success the Right has had in re-drawing the “center line” of American politics: John McCain is “moderate”, Arlen Specter is almost not a Republican at all, and everyone to the left of him is described by such pinpoint-accurate terms as “socialist,” “communist” or “anti-American.”
Comment by racqueteer — November 16, 2006 @ 5:28 pm
Mort Kondrake has always been a conservative Democrat. And where did you hear that Mara Liasson was shocked. It appears that you’re making up things because you know you’ll have the last word. Sorry. I got it.
Brit Hume’s panel IS conservative. But that’s not the point. They may be conservative in their conclusions, but they make the effort to show all sides of the issue. Turn the channel over to Lou Dobbs and you see a liberal panel only bring up the liberal point of view. Dobbs treats his audience as dummies; Hume treats his audience as equals.
Comment by erljr — November 17, 2006 @ 1:43 pm