FOX News Sunday, by request…
In the comments section of a post from last week, Rebecca, one of my long-time and serious readers, suggested I take a look at FOX News Sunday for an example of serious news on TV. She said:
I know this will be met with cries of Boo!!Hiss!!, but Fox News Sunday is one of only two TV shows I consistently watch. The reason: Balance – a typical panel consists of Juan Williams and Mara Liasson (NPR), Bill Kristol (Weekly Standard), Brit Hume (Fox News) with Tony Snow as moderator. These people are well spoken, intelligent and never shout at each other in spite of deep ideological differences, in fact, they seem to actually like each other. They don’t allow liberal/conservatives to shout at each other either. Last week (I think, maybe week before) they had a pro-gay marriage person and an anti-gay marriage person on, but not together. First the one gave her point of view, then when that was over, the other gave his – there was no shouting or talking over each other. Both sides get to say their bit without interruption or derision.
First, I need to say that I do not watch the Sunday news-talk shows consistently. And my remarks here are based on one viewing of FOX News Sunday. The only reason I’m making these remarks is that another serious reader, “JSteele,” suggested I do so based on Rebecca’s comment. I have seen most of the Sunday shows, and I am aware of how they operate most of the time. I should add that any comments I make here are based on seeing the show, not reading a transcript. So I am at the mercy of my memory and my ideological biases. For the most part, I found the spirit of Rebecca’s description above to be accurate. It was indeed pleasant, during the talk portion of the show, to watch people treat each other with respect as they discussed serious issues.
FOX does, however, have its spin. For example, I thought Tony Snow did a good job in his interview with Congressman John Dingell regarding energy policy. I can say without reservation that it seemed “fair and balanced.” But his interview with Congressman Tom DeLay was another matter. He allowed DeLay to bad-mouth the Democrats–a bit of impoliteness that Dingell avoided–without comment or challenge. DeLay’s first comment, at best, was a distortion of Dingle’s clearly-stated position, and Snow failed to call him on it. Further, whereas Dingell was questioned only about energy policy, Snow allowed DeLay to ramble on, with a little prodding, about other issues, including Iraq, redistricting in Texas, and a marriage amendment to the Constitution. No Democrat was interviewed about those issues in return. In all of his comments, DeLay blamed the Democrats in one fashion or another without comment or challenge from Snow.
Is any of that a big deal? No. Just my observations. As I said, for the most part, I find Rebecca’s description accurate based on a single viewing.
I had a different take on the Dingle(Dingell?)/DeLay segment. IMO, Tony Snow didn’t need to call Delay on his extreme partisanship – DeLay made a total @ss of himself. I’m not sure why you didn’t think it was obvious to everyone that Dingle/Dingell acquitted himself admirably and DeLay made a total fool of himself. Tony did try interrupt a couple of times, but just gave up. Maybe he was thinking “give ‘em enough rope and they’ll hang themselves.” At least that was my thought. I think he asked DeLay about Texas and Iraq because DeLay had recently returned from a trip from Iraq and may have had some insight there, and since DeLay is a Texan, I suppose, the thinking was he may have had something useful to say there, but as far as I was concerned, he blew it so bad on the energy segment, I wasn’t very interested in what he had to say about anything else. But what is more interesting to me is your thinking that we need the interviewer to point out these egregious examples of “distortion” and “impoliteness”. Tsk!Tsk! Doc.
The “enough rope” argument is a good one. But don’t give up on my take just yet
While I completely agree that DeLay made an ass of himself, I don’t think that journalists should simply sit back and “allow” it. It has nothing to do with thinking that the average Joe can’t figure out when a pol is making a jerk of himself. I have every confidence that most people watching could see that.
And, I may be unfair to suppose that Snow’s reaction demonstrated bias. But, then, I did qualify my statements
I have never understood why reporters/interviewers seem totally unable to point out obvious ad hominem or straw-man arguments.
Do you think that’s why viewers may have trouble recognizing them, too?
Well, I’m at a loss to say why. I knew some reporters who were great at follow-up questions (or pointing out the fallacies). And I knew many who let statements go begging. Here’s a guess: I think it has far more to do with the personality of the reporter than any overt political bias.
I do not think the average Joe has trouble recognizing these fallacies most of the time. They may not be able to put names to them, but they smell the rats just fine
I agree with Dr. Cline, and based on a single viewing I found it to be Fair and Balanced.® newscast. Aside from feeling nervous for DeLay’s foes, I was struck by how much Tony Snow’s interview with him resembled a presidential press conference.
My ad hominem response is that Tom DeLay is a scary man who says mean things. Sure, he smiles and seems likeable enough, but there is a reason he carries “The Hammer” as a nickname.
There were many things DeLay said that I disagreed with politically, and some that I believe were patently false or disingenuous. However, one piece of rhetoric stood out:
I’ve been told that when someone uses a qualifier such as “extremist”, it gives more insight into the speaker, rather than the subject. Did he imply earlier that the BANANA is worse than the NIMBY?
Most people empathize with NIMBY, the homeowner who wakes up someday and finds a transmission tower where there used to be a plastic playhouse. A BANANA on the other hand, is an activist, or in DeLay’s words: an extremist. I’d never heard that term before, but I suppose BANANA is the appropriate response to the herds of the Build Anything Anywhere (BAA) crowd, the GOP sheep.
If NIMBY is commonly associated with debate regarding utilities, then a BANANA is the environmentalist who opposes everything, including oil drilling in the ANWR. Did DeLay transfer the imagery from NIMBY to BANANA and increase the drama for his side of the argument on the power legislation?
The political picture I have of Delay is that he has a lack of regard for those who oppose him. This was demonstrated by his attacks on the Democrats at every opportunity. That might be the correct attitude for a prize fighter, but not for a WHIP — someone who, by definition, should be flexible.
As for FOX News Sunday, other than DeLay (I can only take him in small doses apparently), I
Rebecca,
Actually, there are a number of reasons why an interviewer must should address spin.
1. Many folks don’t have the knowledge or education to be aware that it is spin. Here’s a perfect example…are you enjoying your “average” $1,100 tax cut El Chimpizente gave you? Of course not, because it doesn’t exist. That number was a manipulation of mean and median averages to disguise the fact that the “average taxpayer” (accurately described as the mid 20% quintile median) got near bupkus.
I studied econ and knew that was a lie day one. Most people I know did not.
Another example I’ve encountered in past two weeks. While explaining Dean’s position to eliminate the income cap on SS taxes, I’ve discovered that a number of very well educated and smart people I know have no idea that once you make more than ~$87K in taxable income, you stop paying SS taxes on all additional money.
2. Manipulative choice as to what spin is allowed. This is also why this “one day” experiment fails. Interviewers regularly challenge spin from folks they don’t like, and allow it to stand from folks they do.
A prime example is the recent Dean/Russert bit. As noted by Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler, most of the point Russert cimbed on Dean over were also asked and answered in the same manner by then candidate Bush. Dean got bashed, while Russert found Bush’s similar answers “smart and prudent”.
“Journalists” (too bad we have so few that don’t need scare quotes in a description) often us the trickery of selective comment or lying by omission to spin their work. The only way you can catch that is by reviewing a long series of material from them. A one day review misses this.
John…you’re quite right about 1-day reviews. And that’s why I qualified my statements.
What I think is most interesting here–and I never discussed it!–is the difference in perception between reading transcripts of shows and simply watching (no note-taking).
I think I’ll have to discuss this sometime soon.
Dr. Cline,
You’re right, and that would be a good study. I know that sometimes I go back and read transcripts a few days afterwards, and am stunned by how different the content seems to me. Sometimes it’s radically different.
For example, with Russert, it wasn’t until I looked at a number of transcripts that I realized he has an obvious visceral anger against anyone who wants to revoke the Bush tax cuts. Its a combo of the need to look at multiple data points, and written transcript vs visual. It just seems like a point among many if you just watch, but on transcript you see he always goes off on the point, and it takes up a lot of the Q&A text.
That realization was what led to my blog reference as to “wondering how much money Russert got back”.
John – since you identified GWB as “El Chimpizente” I know immediately you are not “fair and balanced” (TM). Furthermore, your sphere of knowledge has increased, since I am one of many who enjoy the “$l,l00.00″ tax cut. We are solidly middle class, which means we support both the underclass and the overclass. It’s nice to have some of our money back -BTW, we pay a large amount in federal taxes. As far as economics go, I will say straight up that economics make my brain seize up – but I still read some on it, since I know it is important. But there are several problems here – #1 – which school of economic thought should be promoted? #2 – as long as we have a population which believes somewhere in the belly of Washington DC, there is an account with their name on it, showing every penny contributed to SS with the appropriate interest rate included, no cross-examination by a news show interviewer will ever get the job done of educating the public on economic matters. TV is not the venue for this type of information. As for Russert, I thought Howard Dean acquitted himself nicely. He brought out the anti-media animus in all (well, most) of us. My personal take on Russert is that he is AGAINST the tax cuts. Finally, last Sunday, Fox News Sunday had Joe Lieberman (sp?) on. Brit Hume was positively catatonic. I will say straight out, that I like Joe Lieberman, and did not want to see him eviserated, but Hume’s lack of follow-up questions and general ennui really frosted my flakes. That’s why the first half hour of FNS is hit and miss – what I enjoy most is the panel discussion during the last half hour.
John: I too am enjoying my share of the tax cuts — all $4.80 of it. That’s per pay-period, mind you. The deli I frequent charges $5.25 for the lunch special. They provide a frequent buyer card (10 stamps = 1 free lunch) which gives me more benefit than the tax cut. Needless to say, I don’t have children or stocks that pay dividends.
Has anybody seen a transcript of Bush’s comments that accurately reflected his unusual speaking cadence? I saw one once, and it looked really strange. To be clear, I think the author was using it as a mechanism to denigrate Bush.
Does the delivery make a difference in the substance of the rhetoric? Maybe not, but perhaps it does shed light into the meaning. A perfect example is when Bush recently “took responsibility” for the SOTU-16. Reading the transcript one would assume that, yes, he did take responsibility. However, if you view the video, you’ll see that Bush shrugged it off — not metaphorically, he actually shrugged when he said it. Same words, different meaning.
Rebecca,
If you actually recieved anything back, then I can assume the following.
1. You are married and have kids. The only folks in the real middle class who get anything more than a token back are in this group. The rest of us are far closer to Jonathan, who must be close to my position, since his cut mirrors mine.
(Side note – Exactly why I shhould be paying for other people’s kids escapes me. The poor I get, but why should I be subsidizing people with $$$ to pay for their kids is an abomination.)
2. Or you are among the most common of Americans, the moderately wealthy who mistakenly think they are in the “middle class”. In 2003, tax-payers earning $29,000-46,000
John – If you want to get into a “subsidizing” pissing contest, I will state for the record that very few in this country are not “subsidized” one way or another. As I’m sure you know, the overwhelming majority of the “deficit” is not tax cuts, military, etc. but social security and medicare – “subsidizing” you and I will ultimately benefit from. Or do you think you have your own personal account down at the SS office?
At any rate, I’m done with this line of comment – I’ve exhausted my range of economic knowledge!
Jonathan…yew bet! Delivery is the fifth canon of rhetoric and deals specifically with how a message is spoken (tone, gestures, venue) and written.
To illustrate tone of voice for example, I give my student’s this sentence:
“She’s nice.”
Depending on your emphasis and tone of voice you can mean one of these:
1- She’s a nice person.
2- She’s nice, but that’s not enough.
3- She’s easy.
4- She’s hot!