Nick Robinson attacks Jeremy Paxman's handling of the news
My headline is a lie but I wanted to get your attention. Just imagine if BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson had popped up on Newsnight's video link to tell Jeremy Paxman or Kirsty Wark that they had spent the whole of their programme focusing on the wrong issue. Unlikely but it would be great to watch.
Well watch this... Fox News' Chris Wallace appears on screen to tell the three presenters of Fox & Friends that they have mis-spent two hours of prime time TV unfairly bashing Barack Obama and missed other bigger news topics. The Fox & Friends trio had been discussing Senator Obama's "typical white person" remark. They don't like their colleague's intervention. My guess is we haven't heard the end of this. Brilliant stuff.
I think it just shows that some, maybe most at Fox have little pretense about their views. They are who they are and most have a bent to the right. The Beeb are bent to the left and from what I've seen pretense pervades. And a helluva condensation.
I doubt the flap will amount to anything. Chris has always maintained a more maverick or independent stance. I like him but think he's learned a lot in just these past few years; you know, why so long to conclude some obvious realities.
As far as the "typical white person" statement I don't see anything wrong with it. I think its frank and more or less accurate. Human nature does condition from fear meaning blacks have, typical fears too. The problem many whites have with his statement is there is a double standard and a white man or woman could not similarly phrase a response with respect to blacks without being judged racist, at least here in the States. Through the entirety of Obama's speech he acknowledged such problems with both races but in the end, left no responsibility upon blacks, only whites. And his cure... trust in him. Blame rich big business and shift power unto himself with a more authoritarian big daddy government.
Jeremy Paxman. That's one person that could make me happier disgraced by scandal than Spitzer.
Posted by: Steevo | March 22, 2008 at 01:22
Too delicious.
Far too unlikely to happen here.
Posted by: Northernhousewife | March 22, 2008 at 01:27
Why can't we have a programme like Fox here it would be great, I really like it. I think it was Charles Krauthammer who said Rupert Murdoch had found a gap in the market - half the population! I like the way they allow everyone on and let them have their say whether they agree with them or not.
Posted by: carol42 | March 22, 2008 at 01:43
Hung Parliament?
Surely hanging is too good for them?
Posted by: Johnthedewk | March 22, 2008 at 03:58
Worth noting that one of the three presenters had stormed out earlier on because of the other two's persistent battering of Obama and this was before Wallace's intervention.
Must admit that i've never liked the 'Fox & Friends' program... Fox is very much a mixed bag, with worthwhile folks like Wallace and Brit Hume on the same network as the likes of Hannity and O'Reilly (although the latter is good for his banter if not his content).
Posted by: Ben Surtees | March 22, 2008 at 08:46
The face of one of the Fox & F presenters at the end is priceless. I bet there are some nasty afters...
Posted by: Alan S | March 22, 2008 at 09:43
Wrong analogy really. It's more like Paxman admonishing the BBC breakfast team for trivialising important issues.
By the way Fox's market isn't half the population its the 28-30% hardcore of Bush supporters. And there numbers and revenues have been falling for a while now.
Posted by: Doug | March 22, 2008 at 10:14
Most major media here are being hit. You should see what's happening to the NY Times. Nielsen seems to be the most highly regarded rating system for TV. I googled them and got their viewership ratings from late December to Jan 10th. There are 4 graphs and its clear, combined, Fox is watched the most.
As far is who is watching Fox, maybe it should ask who's watching CNN. Anyway almost all of Fox's polls on current issues, who folks will vote for etc. are pretty evenly split Dems and Republicans from what I've seen. Quite similar to the major national poll takers.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/01/11/daily-cable-news-ratings-through-thursday
-january-10/2362
Posted by: Steevo | March 22, 2008 at 10:43
"Wrong analogy really. It's more like Paxman admonishing the BBC breakfast team for trivialising important issues."
Good point... although I'd put Wallace as more akin to Robinson, Hume is the flag-ship anchor (no pun intended) for the network and so more of a Paxman figure, but Fox & Friends is very much the 'soft news' a-la BBC Breakfast.
Posted by: Ben Surtees | March 22, 2008 at 10:49
Thanks Doug. My analogy certainly wasn't perfect.
Posted by: Tim Montgomerie | March 22, 2008 at 11:15
Fox News is fairly pathetic all round really. Its like a news station run like a game show. Spin the wheel and see what news we have today. It's like the Mail in some ways.. I wouldn't want a British version of Fox News. I would want a rolling news station version of the Torygraph though.
Posted by: Igirisu Jin | March 22, 2008 at 12:25
Fox is tabloid news. And very watchable tabloid news at that. I think if they had the right people it could work here (but probably wouldnt be allowed, what with rules on any bias *cough* non-liberal bias - i think Sky was dabbling with the idea it a while back by hiring Littlejohn, but his usually fiery views didnt really translate to TV very well and was quickly flushed.
Obviously a serious conservative news channel would be nice, but i doubt it would command much viewing figures, the BBC subsidises News 24/ aka leftist news heavily, more so than any accountable company would be willing to do so for a rival conservative channel.
Posted by: Conservative Homer | March 22, 2008 at 13:39
Just a thought that if some Conservatives interupted a 2 hour Tory bashing by the BBC like this over the years there might be a lot more Tory MPs.
Posted by: David Sergeant | March 22, 2008 at 16:57
By the way Fox's market isn't half the population its the 28-30% hardcore of Bush supporters. And there numbers and revenues have been falling for a while now.
This is factually incorrect.
According to www.stateofthemedia.org in 2007 the demographics for FoxNews were:
38% -- were Republicans, followed by Democrats (31%) and independents (22%).
However, both CNN and MSNBC had 40% plus Democrat audiences and much lower percentages of Republican viewers (22 & 19% respectively). In both cases the number of Democrats viewing is greater than the sum of Independents and Republicans
It is CNN and MSNBC that have the greater skewed viewer demographics being primarily Democrat attracting channels.
That said, given the number of Democrats and Independents that do watch FoxNews it does make you wonder why the Democratic Presidential candidates have been so averse to debating on FoxNews?
As for the rest of the highlighted comment;
Fox News simple mean audience grew by 4% in 2007 (as did CNN's). Fox revenues grew by 21% in 2007 and profits resulting were the 2nd highest (in real terms) in Fox News's relatively short history.
See here:
Cable News Audiences 2007
FoxNews Revenues 2007
Given the above facts and that Fox has almost twice as many viewers as CNN on average (3 times MSNBC), boasts 8 out of the 10 top programmes in US cable news broadcasting and is still climbing the overall cable channel ratings (10th in 2006, 8th in 2007, and for the last two months in the top 5 in 2008), I don't see that there can be much question about their performance.
Posted by: John Leonard | March 22, 2008 at 19:34
Maybe some of your readers would care to look atthe following - it shows part of one of the Wright sermons without editing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ
The man who inspired him was Ambassador Edward Peck - a (white) retired US Diplomat, you can find more on MSNBC, ABC, and the Huffington Post.
In case anyone wonders I am a fully paid up member of the Conservative Party who happens to prefer Obama to the divisive Hillary
josephine
Posted by: Josephine | March 23, 2008 at 13:53
Josephine, it doesn't matter who came up with the original ideas Write quoted. In fact, they can be traced back to the '60s "liberation" movements, and even Peck was quoting someone else.
What matters is that Wright obviously AGREES with these crackpot ideas and has been preaching them from a CHURCH pulpit all this time. And Obama exposed his children to this poison.
PS: There is no such thing as a US-style "conservative" who supports a Democrat in today's atmosphere. The party power structure has been taken over by extremists. Hillary and Obama are BOTH Marxists with not a dime's worth of difference in their policies.
Posted by: mamapajamas | March 24, 2008 at 20:24
mamapajamas,
I guess the 'right' are purer than the proverbial driven then?
I bet you are a 'Faux News' Hannity follower - although I confess I do have to admit to getting enjoyment from watching O'Reilly....
What a backward and limited view you have.
You have my sympathy
j
Posted by: Josephine | March 26, 2008 at 10:08
ROFLMAO! Josephine, I don't even HAVE a cable line in my house! I wouldn't pay a plug nickle for the tripe coming across the TV lines these day!
No, I get my news from the world's newspaper web sites, from the sources themselves. I get my news of Iraq from actual Iraqis. I get my news of the UK from actual Brits.
As for what goes on in black churches in the US, I've BEEN in black churches in the US, and have NEVER heard the kind of poison I've heard coming from Wright.
I KNOW where Wright's ideas came from because I've "been there, done that". The lines he delivers are so old they creak with triteness. They are straight out of the '60s, and I personally REMEMBER that era because I was an adult then, able to hear and see for myself.
The kind of poison he spews does not belong in a church pulpit, and Obama is completely nuts if he thinks this is going to be overlooked.
It may be too late for Hillary to get the Democratic nomination away from him, because this came out AFTER Obama already had enough delegates to win the Democratic Party nomination.
But I can promise you that if he runs as the Democratic Party nominee in November, he is going to lose in such a landslide as hasn't been seen since McGovern lost against Nixon (Nixon won in a 49-state landslide), even though Nixon was already hobbled with the Watergate controversy.
Obama is a Marxist, and this is going to come through loud and clear in the months to come.
Don't hold your breath waiting for Obama to win the White House.
Posted by: mamapajamas | March 30, 2008 at 00:49