G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Fox News is in for a very rough 2008
By Eric Boehlert
Created Jan 30 2008 - 10:44am
My guess is that Fox News guru Roger Ailes has been reaching for the Tums
more often than usual early in the New Year, and there are lots of reasons
for the hovering angst.
Let's take an extended multiple choice quiz. Right now, which of the
following topics is likely causing the discomfort inside Ailes' Fox News
empire?
A) CNN's resurgence as the go-to cable destination for election coverage.
B) The incredible shrinking candidacy of Fox News' favored son [1], Rudy
Giuliani.
C) The still-standing candidacy of Fox News nemesis and well-funded [2],
anti-war GOP candidate Rep. Ron Paul.
D) The Democratic candidates' blanket refusal [3] to debate on Fox News
during the primary season.
E) Host Bill O'Reilly being so desperate for an interview from a
Democratic contender that he had to schlep all the way to New Hampshire,
where he shoved [4] an aide to Sen. Barack Obama and then had to be calmed
down by Secret Service agents.
F) Former Fox News architect and Ailes confidante Dan Cooper posting
chapters from his a wildly unflattering tell-all book [5] about his old
boss. ("The best thing that ever happened to Roger Ailes was 9/11.")
G) The fledgling Fox Business Network, whose anemic ratings [6] are in
danger of being surpassed by some large city public access channels.
H) Host John Gibson's recent heartless attacks [7] on actor Heath Ledger,
just hours after the young actor was found dead.
I) Fox News reporter Major Garrett botching [8] his "exclusive" that Paul
Begala and James Carville were going to join Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's
presidential campaign, and then refusing to correct the record.
I'd say it's A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. (I doubt Gibson's grave-dancing or
Garrett's whopper caused Ailes a moment's concern.)
Bottom line is that Fox News is in for a very rough 2008. And the umbrella
reason for that is quite simple: Eight years ago the all-news cable channel
went all-in on the presidency of George Bush and became a broadcast partner
with the White House. Proof of that was on display Sunday night, January 27,
during Fox News' prime-time, "Fighting to the Finish," an "historic
documentary" on the final year of Bush's presidency. Filmed in HD and
featuring "unprecedented access," according to the Fox News press release,
the show was pure propaganda. (I must have missed Fox News' "Fighting to the
Finish" special back in 2000, chronicling the conclusion of President Bill
Clinton's second term and his "extraordinarily consequential tenure.")
The point is that Fox News years ago made an obvious decision to appeal
almost exclusively to Republican viewers. The good news then for Fox News
was that it succeeded. The bad news now for Fox News is that it succeeded.
Meaning, when the GOP catches a cold, everybody at Fox News gets sick. As
blogger Logan Murphy put it [9] at Crooks and Liars, "Watching FOXNews
getting their comeuppance has been fun to watch. They made their bed, now
they're having to lie in it and it's not too comfortable."
The most obvious signs of Fox News' downturn have been the cable ratings for
the big primary and caucus votes this year, as well as the high-profile
debates. With this election season generating unprecedented voter and viewer
interest, Fox News' rating bumps to date have remained underwhelming, to say
the least.
For instance, on the night of the big New Hampshire primary, CNN, which
habitually trails behind Fox News in the prime-time race, attracted nearly
250,000 more viewers than its top competitor, marking a
changing-of-the-guard of sorts.
The turnaround was striking when you consider that in 2004, even with no
Republicans running against Bush, Fox News was still able to draw 200,000
more viewers than CNN on the night of the New Hampshire Democratic primary.
Yet in 2008, with a very competitive GOP field, CNN was the ratings winner
from New Hampshire.
And just look at the ratings for January 19, which featured returns from the
Nevada caucus coming in during the late afternoon, and then fresh returns
from the South Carolina Republican primary being posted during prime time
that night. In the past, Fox News would have absolutely owned that night of
coverage, as conservative news junkies flocked to their home team -- Fox
News -- to see the results. But no more. CNN grabbed nearly just as many
prime-time viewers for the Republican South Carolina returns as did Fox
News.
The problem for Fox News is that it's the Democratic race that's creating
most of the excitement, yet Fox News has been forced to mostly watch the
race from the sidelines. That's because last winter, after Fox News tried to
smear [10] Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for purportedly attending a radical
Muslim school as a child, liberal bloggers launched [11] an initiative to
get Democratic candidates to boycott a debate co-sponsored by Fox News and
the Nevada Democratic Party. (The boycott, powered by Foxattacks.com [12],
was later extended to any and all Fox News debates.)
The point of the online crusade was not to simply embarrass Fox News or
rattle Nevada Democrats for being out of touch with the grassroots masses
that distrusted and despised Fox News. The point, instead, was to begin
chipping away, in a serious, consistent method, at Fox News' reputation. To
spell out that Fox News was nothing more than a Republican mouthpiece and
that Democrats need not engage with the News Corp. giant.
The lack of Democratic debates for Fox News has meant a huge setback for the
news organization from a ratings perspective. Just look at the grand slam
CNN hit last week when, on January 21, it broadcast the much-talked-about
Democratic debate from South Carolina. The CNN event not only creamed Fox
News in the ratings, nearly tripling its audience that night, but the debate
set a new cable news mark for the most viewers ever to watch a primary
debate.
In fact, of the 10 most-watched debates [13] this election season, Fox has
aired just two, compared to CNN's five. Of the 10 most-watched debates, six
have featured Democrats; four Republicans.
CNN is virtually guaranteed another monster ratings win this week with a
pair of high-profile debates staged in California -- the Republicans on
Wednesday night and Democrats on Thursday.
No wonder CNN's so giddy these days. Here's the spin CNN president Jonathan
Klein put out [14] following its New Hampshire ratings win: "There's a
freshness and exuberance to our coverage that the others just aren't
matching. ... Fox almost seems downright despondent in their coverage."
So I'm not the only one who feels like Fox News coverage, especially of the
Republican field, often feels like a televised wake. Or maybe that's just
been Fox News' collective, subconscious mourning of the Giuliani campaign.
After all, Sean Hannity serves as Fox News' official ambassador [15] to the
Giuliani campaign; a campaign that Ailes and Fox News were hoping to ride
back into the White House. Yet despite showering Giuliani with all kinds of
laudatory coverage, both Hannity and Ailes have been powerless, as they've
watched Giuliani's rudderless campaign go nowhere [16] for months.
Even an all-out Fox News marketing blitz to label Giuliani "America's Mayor"
never got traction. In fact, it ranked right up there with the launch of New
Coke, in terms of branding success. (Watch this clip [17] to see the Fox
News absurdity up-close.)
In the meantime, the rise of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and especially Mike
Huckabee, with his populist streak, has caused all sorts of consternation at
Fox News. Even the conservative Weekly Standard took noticed. The magazine
recently wrote that "A lot of conservatives have problems with both Huckabee
and McCain. Last night on Fox, for example, Sean Hannity could barely
conceal his distaste for both pols."
And don't even mention Ron Paul's name to the folks at Fox News, who have
stepped outside their role as journalists to try to kneecap the anti-war GOP
candidate. The most blatant slap came right before the New Hampshire
primary, when Fox News refused to include Paul in a televised GOP debate,
despite the fact that just days earlier Paul grabbed 10 percent of the vote
in the Iowa caucus, nearly doubling the tally Giuliani posted.
Paul's Republican supporters became so incensed by the snub that they
literally chased Sean Hannity through the New Hampshire night chanting "Fox
News sucks!" and captured the scene in a homemade clip that really has to be
seen [18] to be believed. (To recap New Hampshire for Fox News: Hannity was
pursued by a Republican mob, O'Reilly got into a shoving match with an Obama
aide, and CNN grabbed more viewers. Now that's a week to remember!)
Oh, and we can't forget the wildly hyped launch of the Fox Business Network,
which, News Corp. execs bragged, would dethrone longtime cable business news
champ CNBC. Of course, that might happen one day. But the early ratings for
Fox Business Network have been unbelievably weak.
After two months on the air, Fox Business Network, available in 30 million
homes, was attracting, on average, just 6,300 viewers on any given weekday,
according to Nielsen Media Research. That was good for a nearly invisible
..05 rating. (By comparison, CNBC during that period was attracting 265,000
viewers.)
Making matters worse for Ailes was the fact that on January 22, as fears
mounted about a possible global financial crisis, CNBC posted its best
ratings in seven years [19], attracting 401,000 viewers that day.
The hurdle for Fox Business Network has always been simple: Why would
investors and day traders in search of reliable business information turn
from CNBC over to the Fox brand, which is so well-known for passing along
one-sided information? News Corp. always assumed Fox News would help launch
the business channel. But Fox News is taken seriously by so few people, it
may be hurting the business launch.
After all, Fox News continues to embarrass itself with a type of journalism
that nobody else in the industry would dare call professional. And for proof
of that look no further than Major Garrett, who is supposed to be one of the
channel's nonpartisan, serious journalists. He landed a recent scoop about
how former advisers to Bill Clinton, Paul Begala and James Carville, were
getting set to join Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Carville immediately shot the story down, telling [20] Talking Points Memo's
Greg Sargent that very same day, "Fox was, is and will continue to be an
asinine and ignorant network. I have not spoken to anyone in the Clinton
campaign about this. I'm not getting back into domestic political
consulting."
Begala did Carville one better and directly emailed [21] Garrett to deny the
story -- a story Garrett never bothered trying to check with Begala or
Carville before it was broadcast. Garrett's response to Begala's blanket
denial? Garrett told the Democratic operative that he would take his denial
"under advisement." [Emphasis added.]
Garrett then went back on the air and repeated the same story, and added the
fact that Begala had been on a conference call the day before with Clinton
advisers, which was also false. And no, despite his earlier email exchange
with Begala, Garrett never bothered to try to confirm the conference call
story with him before reporting it on Fox News.
On his Fox News blog, Garrett did acknowledge [22] the Begala email and
claimed he'd be updating the fast-moving story soon -- which, he told
readers, would likely be confirmed the next day when the Clinton campaign
made the Begala/Carville announcement. But the next day when the story
imploded, Garrett simply ignored the embarrassing gaffe.
Recounting the whole Kafka-esque charade at the Huffington Post, Begala
wrote [23], "I've never had a more surrealistic day. If this is what one of
Fox's best and most respected reporters is doing, what are the hacks up to?"
They're watching CNN capture the campaign ratings crown.
UPDATE: Fresh Nielsen numbers show Fox News' ratings woes continued over the
weekend. During Saturday night's 8-10 p.m. ET coverage of the Democrats'
South Carolina primary results, Fox News not only got trounced by CNN among
viewers 25-54, but lost to MSNBC as well.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Eric Boehlert
Created Jan 30 2008 - 10:44am
My guess is that Fox News guru Roger Ailes has been reaching for the Tums
more often than usual early in the New Year, and there are lots of reasons
for the hovering angst.
Let's take an extended multiple choice quiz. Right now, which of the
following topics is likely causing the discomfort inside Ailes' Fox News
empire?
A) CNN's resurgence as the go-to cable destination for election coverage.
B) The incredible shrinking candidacy of Fox News' favored son [1], Rudy
Giuliani.
C) The still-standing candidacy of Fox News nemesis and well-funded [2],
anti-war GOP candidate Rep. Ron Paul.
D) The Democratic candidates' blanket refusal [3] to debate on Fox News
during the primary season.
E) Host Bill O'Reilly being so desperate for an interview from a
Democratic contender that he had to schlep all the way to New Hampshire,
where he shoved [4] an aide to Sen. Barack Obama and then had to be calmed
down by Secret Service agents.
F) Former Fox News architect and Ailes confidante Dan Cooper posting
chapters from his a wildly unflattering tell-all book [5] about his old
boss. ("The best thing that ever happened to Roger Ailes was 9/11.")
G) The fledgling Fox Business Network, whose anemic ratings [6] are in
danger of being surpassed by some large city public access channels.
H) Host John Gibson's recent heartless attacks [7] on actor Heath Ledger,
just hours after the young actor was found dead.
I) Fox News reporter Major Garrett botching [8] his "exclusive" that Paul
Begala and James Carville were going to join Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's
presidential campaign, and then refusing to correct the record.
I'd say it's A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. (I doubt Gibson's grave-dancing or
Garrett's whopper caused Ailes a moment's concern.)
Bottom line is that Fox News is in for a very rough 2008. And the umbrella
reason for that is quite simple: Eight years ago the all-news cable channel
went all-in on the presidency of George Bush and became a broadcast partner
with the White House. Proof of that was on display Sunday night, January 27,
during Fox News' prime-time, "Fighting to the Finish," an "historic
documentary" on the final year of Bush's presidency. Filmed in HD and
featuring "unprecedented access," according to the Fox News press release,
the show was pure propaganda. (I must have missed Fox News' "Fighting to the
Finish" special back in 2000, chronicling the conclusion of President Bill
Clinton's second term and his "extraordinarily consequential tenure.")
The point is that Fox News years ago made an obvious decision to appeal
almost exclusively to Republican viewers. The good news then for Fox News
was that it succeeded. The bad news now for Fox News is that it succeeded.
Meaning, when the GOP catches a cold, everybody at Fox News gets sick. As
blogger Logan Murphy put it [9] at Crooks and Liars, "Watching FOXNews
getting their comeuppance has been fun to watch. They made their bed, now
they're having to lie in it and it's not too comfortable."
The most obvious signs of Fox News' downturn have been the cable ratings for
the big primary and caucus votes this year, as well as the high-profile
debates. With this election season generating unprecedented voter and viewer
interest, Fox News' rating bumps to date have remained underwhelming, to say
the least.
For instance, on the night of the big New Hampshire primary, CNN, which
habitually trails behind Fox News in the prime-time race, attracted nearly
250,000 more viewers than its top competitor, marking a
changing-of-the-guard of sorts.
The turnaround was striking when you consider that in 2004, even with no
Republicans running against Bush, Fox News was still able to draw 200,000
more viewers than CNN on the night of the New Hampshire Democratic primary.
Yet in 2008, with a very competitive GOP field, CNN was the ratings winner
from New Hampshire.
And just look at the ratings for January 19, which featured returns from the
Nevada caucus coming in during the late afternoon, and then fresh returns
from the South Carolina Republican primary being posted during prime time
that night. In the past, Fox News would have absolutely owned that night of
coverage, as conservative news junkies flocked to their home team -- Fox
News -- to see the results. But no more. CNN grabbed nearly just as many
prime-time viewers for the Republican South Carolina returns as did Fox
News.
The problem for Fox News is that it's the Democratic race that's creating
most of the excitement, yet Fox News has been forced to mostly watch the
race from the sidelines. That's because last winter, after Fox News tried to
smear [10] Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for purportedly attending a radical
Muslim school as a child, liberal bloggers launched [11] an initiative to
get Democratic candidates to boycott a debate co-sponsored by Fox News and
the Nevada Democratic Party. (The boycott, powered by Foxattacks.com [12],
was later extended to any and all Fox News debates.)
The point of the online crusade was not to simply embarrass Fox News or
rattle Nevada Democrats for being out of touch with the grassroots masses
that distrusted and despised Fox News. The point, instead, was to begin
chipping away, in a serious, consistent method, at Fox News' reputation. To
spell out that Fox News was nothing more than a Republican mouthpiece and
that Democrats need not engage with the News Corp. giant.
The lack of Democratic debates for Fox News has meant a huge setback for the
news organization from a ratings perspective. Just look at the grand slam
CNN hit last week when, on January 21, it broadcast the much-talked-about
Democratic debate from South Carolina. The CNN event not only creamed Fox
News in the ratings, nearly tripling its audience that night, but the debate
set a new cable news mark for the most viewers ever to watch a primary
debate.
In fact, of the 10 most-watched debates [13] this election season, Fox has
aired just two, compared to CNN's five. Of the 10 most-watched debates, six
have featured Democrats; four Republicans.
CNN is virtually guaranteed another monster ratings win this week with a
pair of high-profile debates staged in California -- the Republicans on
Wednesday night and Democrats on Thursday.
No wonder CNN's so giddy these days. Here's the spin CNN president Jonathan
Klein put out [14] following its New Hampshire ratings win: "There's a
freshness and exuberance to our coverage that the others just aren't
matching. ... Fox almost seems downright despondent in their coverage."
So I'm not the only one who feels like Fox News coverage, especially of the
Republican field, often feels like a televised wake. Or maybe that's just
been Fox News' collective, subconscious mourning of the Giuliani campaign.
After all, Sean Hannity serves as Fox News' official ambassador [15] to the
Giuliani campaign; a campaign that Ailes and Fox News were hoping to ride
back into the White House. Yet despite showering Giuliani with all kinds of
laudatory coverage, both Hannity and Ailes have been powerless, as they've
watched Giuliani's rudderless campaign go nowhere [16] for months.
Even an all-out Fox News marketing blitz to label Giuliani "America's Mayor"
never got traction. In fact, it ranked right up there with the launch of New
Coke, in terms of branding success. (Watch this clip [17] to see the Fox
News absurdity up-close.)
In the meantime, the rise of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and especially Mike
Huckabee, with his populist streak, has caused all sorts of consternation at
Fox News. Even the conservative Weekly Standard took noticed. The magazine
recently wrote that "A lot of conservatives have problems with both Huckabee
and McCain. Last night on Fox, for example, Sean Hannity could barely
conceal his distaste for both pols."
And don't even mention Ron Paul's name to the folks at Fox News, who have
stepped outside their role as journalists to try to kneecap the anti-war GOP
candidate. The most blatant slap came right before the New Hampshire
primary, when Fox News refused to include Paul in a televised GOP debate,
despite the fact that just days earlier Paul grabbed 10 percent of the vote
in the Iowa caucus, nearly doubling the tally Giuliani posted.
Paul's Republican supporters became so incensed by the snub that they
literally chased Sean Hannity through the New Hampshire night chanting "Fox
News sucks!" and captured the scene in a homemade clip that really has to be
seen [18] to be believed. (To recap New Hampshire for Fox News: Hannity was
pursued by a Republican mob, O'Reilly got into a shoving match with an Obama
aide, and CNN grabbed more viewers. Now that's a week to remember!)
Oh, and we can't forget the wildly hyped launch of the Fox Business Network,
which, News Corp. execs bragged, would dethrone longtime cable business news
champ CNBC. Of course, that might happen one day. But the early ratings for
Fox Business Network have been unbelievably weak.
After two months on the air, Fox Business Network, available in 30 million
homes, was attracting, on average, just 6,300 viewers on any given weekday,
according to Nielsen Media Research. That was good for a nearly invisible
..05 rating. (By comparison, CNBC during that period was attracting 265,000
viewers.)
Making matters worse for Ailes was the fact that on January 22, as fears
mounted about a possible global financial crisis, CNBC posted its best
ratings in seven years [19], attracting 401,000 viewers that day.
The hurdle for Fox Business Network has always been simple: Why would
investors and day traders in search of reliable business information turn
from CNBC over to the Fox brand, which is so well-known for passing along
one-sided information? News Corp. always assumed Fox News would help launch
the business channel. But Fox News is taken seriously by so few people, it
may be hurting the business launch.
After all, Fox News continues to embarrass itself with a type of journalism
that nobody else in the industry would dare call professional. And for proof
of that look no further than Major Garrett, who is supposed to be one of the
channel's nonpartisan, serious journalists. He landed a recent scoop about
how former advisers to Bill Clinton, Paul Begala and James Carville, were
getting set to join Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Carville immediately shot the story down, telling [20] Talking Points Memo's
Greg Sargent that very same day, "Fox was, is and will continue to be an
asinine and ignorant network. I have not spoken to anyone in the Clinton
campaign about this. I'm not getting back into domestic political
consulting."
Begala did Carville one better and directly emailed [21] Garrett to deny the
story -- a story Garrett never bothered trying to check with Begala or
Carville before it was broadcast. Garrett's response to Begala's blanket
denial? Garrett told the Democratic operative that he would take his denial
"under advisement." [Emphasis added.]
Garrett then went back on the air and repeated the same story, and added the
fact that Begala had been on a conference call the day before with Clinton
advisers, which was also false. And no, despite his earlier email exchange
with Begala, Garrett never bothered to try to confirm the conference call
story with him before reporting it on Fox News.
On his Fox News blog, Garrett did acknowledge [22] the Begala email and
claimed he'd be updating the fast-moving story soon -- which, he told
readers, would likely be confirmed the next day when the Clinton campaign
made the Begala/Carville announcement. But the next day when the story
imploded, Garrett simply ignored the embarrassing gaffe.
Recounting the whole Kafka-esque charade at the Huffington Post, Begala
wrote [23], "I've never had a more surrealistic day. If this is what one of
Fox's best and most respected reporters is doing, what are the hacks up to?"
They're watching CNN capture the campaign ratings crown.
UPDATE: Fresh Nielsen numbers show Fox News' ratings woes continued over the
weekend. During Saturday night's 8-10 p.m. ET coverage of the Democrats'
South Carolina primary results, Fox News not only got trounced by CNN among
viewers 25-54, but lost to MSNBC as well.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson