When pollsters and academics single out Fox News viewers and try to determine what they know, or don't know, as compared to other media consumers, the results tend to be embarrassing. (See here, here, here, here, and here.) Then again, that's what happens when a national cable news channel with vast resources devotes itself to misinformation.....it misinforms people.
A new report from Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind Poll continues the awkward Fox News trend, and adds a new twist -- Fox News viewers are less informed than people who don't watch any television news.
From PublicMind Poll, which surveyed adults in New Jersey:
Sunday morning news shows do the most to help people learn about current events, while some outlets, especially Fox News, lead people to be even less informed than those who they don't watch any news at all.
Here's an example of how consumers who don't turn to TV news at all are more informed than consumers who regularly tune into Fox [emphasis added]:
But the real finding is that the results depend on what media sources people turn to for their news. For example, people who watch Fox News, the most popular of the 24-hour cable news networks, are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watch no news at all (after controlling for other news sources, partisanship, education and other demographic factors).
Fairleigh Dickinson political science professor Dan Cassino stresses that because of the survey controls that were implemented, it's not true that Republicans in general were uninformed about current events. But rather it was specifically Fox viewers who scored poorly. "The results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don't watch any news at all," he said.
The good news for Roger Ailes? Fox's misinformation is definitely working. The bad news? With survey results like this, Fox becomes the butt of more jokes.
Unfortunately for Fox Business Network, people can't watch two Fox News Channels at the same time.
On Monday, Reuters reported on a memo with the subject line "Fox News and Fox Business" sent to Fox Business staff by the network's executive vice president, Kevin Magee. Following a meeting with Fox News CEO Roger Ailes, Magee told his staff that he had "been asked to remind you all again that they are separate channels and the more we make FBN look like FNC the more of a disservice we do to ourselves."
According to Reuters -- which noted that despite a large initial investment and high hopes of eventually overtaking CNBC, FBN's ratings are still lagging -- Magee also told staff, "if we give the audience a choice between FNC and the almost-FNC, they will choose FNC every time. Earnings, taxes, jobs etc give us PLENTY to chew on."
This is a particularly important time for Fox Business to appear at least vaguely credible as a business news venture. As Media Matters documented earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal's current arrangement with CNBC -- wherein CNBC reportedly receives advanced access to certain original financial reporting from WSJ and all Dow Jones business outlets as well as other perks -- expires in 2012.
While many observers assumed that Fox Business would inevitably form a partnership with WSJ once the CNBC deal expired -- News Corp. owns both Fox and the WSJ -- Journal managing editor Robert Thomson told Media Matters that partnering with FBN would "not necessarily" happen.
The president of the Independent Association of Publishers' Employees, which represents 1,500 Dow Jones employees, including many at the Journal, expressed to Media Matters that, "by and large, reporters at the Journal do not like being associated in the minds of news sources or news subjects with Fox News."
The concerns of Journal reporters and FBN's VP are well-founded. Aside from just sharing the Fox name, FBN and FNC often mirror each other, covering the same stories in the same ways, with a lot the same on-air talent.
Three FBN hosts (Eric Bolling, David Asman and Neil Cavuto) also host shows on Fox News, and a fourth (Andrew Napolitano) regularly guests on Fox News and fills in there as a host. Various other FBN personalities, including the "very clearly partisan" host Stuart Varney -- who spent much of 2010 openly rooting for Republican electoral victories on Fox's airwaves -- are fixtures on Fox News as well.
Discussing FBN, a source told Reuters that "it's obvious they don't cover enough financial news." While FBN does devote a lot of their airtime to covering economic stories and issues, their programming, specifically during primetime, frequently veers into subject matter that is hardly related to business or the economy. (For example, it's hard to connect the dots as to how Obama's birth certificate or the "Ground Zero Mosque" have an influence on "earnings, taxes, jobs," but the network has devoted time to both.)
Often, Fox Business Network seems like their top concern is promoting conservative politics, rather than covering the economy.
Right-wing media figures are marking today's 1,000th day of the Obama administration by using a 2009 comment by President Obama to reinforce the right-wing talking point that he has failed to improve the economy. This latest right-wing attempt against Obama continues a historic campaign to bring down his administration; however, economic experts agree that the economy would be much worse without Obama administration policies.
Ending months of speculation, Sarah Palin announced yesterday that she will not be seeking the Republican nomination for president in 2012 (or, as Fox Nation put it, "Palin Passes On Presidency"). The announcement also puts an end to one of the more ethically dubious media spectacles in recent memory, as both Palin and her employer Fox News spent the past year mutually benefiting from stoking speculation that she may run for president.
Last September, Politico reporters Jonathan Martin and Keach Hagey laid out the complicated ethical issues inherent in Fox News employing a stable of potential presidential candidates. Martin and Hagey reported that Fox had emailed them and "indicated that once any of the candidates declares for the presidency he or she will have to sever the deal with the network." They went on to note that "it's such a lucrative and powerful pulpit that Palin, Gingrich, Santorum and Huckabee have every reason to delay formal announcements and stay on contract for as long as they can."
While Hagey and Martin were suggesting that Fox's potential candidates would attempt to stay on contract as long as possible in order to bolster their eventual presidential runs, there's a flipside to Fox's lax guidelines that we saw borne out with Palin. Even people who weren't planning on running would be well-served to delay any formal announcement in order to benefit from the publicity lavished upon possible presidential candidates.
Obviously, had Fox suspended all of its employee-candidates pending their decision, this would never have been an issue. But the network, like Palin, greatly benefited from speculation about Palin's potential candidacy.
In a recent interview, Fox News chief Roger Ailes told the Associated Press that he "hired Sarah Palin because she was hot and got ratings." Ailes' remark has been interpreted as him suggesting that Palin's looks were a factor in her hiring. Whether or not that's the case, Ailes has previously said he's considered whether a woman is "attractive" enough for on-air work.
Fox News host Greta Van Susteren defended her boss' comment in a post on her blog. Susteren claimed that Ailes remarks were being misinterpreted and that "his use of the term 'hot' was not meant in a cheap way but rather to describe how everyone in the TV business after the 2008 election was trying to hire the Governor":
I know all the Fox critics will seize on the word "hot" (see below) and accuse Roger of all sorts of things. It will be a field day for the critics - Roger Ailes, Fox News Channel, Governor Palin and the word hot! But if you know Roger and how he wants his cable news network to be and continue to be the most successful (and it is and has been for a long time), you know his use of the term "hot" was not meant in a cheap way but rather to describe how everyone in the TV business after the 2008 election was trying to hire the Governor. TV execs in every network knew she would get the viewers. Yes, she was hot - just as you might describe the new iPhone! (I am sure that comparison to the new iPHone will generate some criticism or discussion.)
When you sought after by all in business, you are hot. I remember after the 2008 election hearing about a bidding war for her among all the networks. In this business, or in any business or sport, when you are part of a bidding war, you are hot...real hot!
If Roger were using the term hot in that 'other way,' and looking to hire that kind of hot, I assure you, he could have hired someone that kind of hot for 1/5 the price of Governor Palin and Roger does watch the bottom line.
Do I think for one second anyone who is a Fox critic or a Roger Ailes critic will believe me? No, of course not. For some people, facts don't matter - it is about who's side are you on Do I care that no one will believe? No, not particularly. And am I posting this to schmooze Roger ? Nope..I have a long term term contract. I don't have to schmooze. (And if you know me, it isn't my personality.) So why bother to post it? I guess some times you just think stuff is so stupid and will be taken out of context and you want to correct it. Sometimes I ignore it, sometimes I don't.
In a January 2011 interview with Esquire's Tom Junod, Ailes said of reporter Amy Kellogg (who graduated with a masters from Stanford and previously held jobs with several television stations before landing at Fox News):
Amy Kellogg came in [looking for a job] and said they thought she looked terrible and we couldn't put her on. She had glasses or something, she had the wrong hair, she had no makeup, she had funny clothes, and I saw through all of it and I said, "Amy, you're very attractive. Do you mind me sending you down to makeup? Let's see if we can do a little work with you." And she said, "No, not at all." Now she's a great, terrific foreign correspondent for us.
From the October 2 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources
Loading the player reg...
In a Newsweek article titled "Roger's Reality Show," Howard Kurtz wrote that Fox executives acknowledge that the news channel "took a hard right turn." This admission confirms what has long been clear: that Fox's news division has been slanted.
From the September 27 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
Loading the player reg...
From the September 27 edition of Fox Business' Imus in the Morning:
Loading the player reg...
During the week of September 12, Fox's "straight news" division launched a weeklong attack on government regulations, including child labor, workplace safety, and civil rights laws. Fox's war on regulation, which mirrors Republican talking points, has now been revealed to be the brainchild of Fox News president Roger Ailes.
Responding to a inquiry from The Daily Beast's Howard Kurtz, Roger Ailes confessed his networks' position within the political echo system. "Every other network has given all their shows to liberals," said the Fox News chief. "We are the balance."
The metamorphosis from "Fair and Balanced" to "we are the balance" is a significant admission that extends beyond simply dropping a "d." Ailes publicly embraces the misguided and long-held conservative lore that the entire mainstream media is reporting from the left. Fox's version of "balance" -- according to its president -- isn't to provide its viewers with an equal hearing of all sides. Rather, Fox's purpose is to supply right-wing bias to correct what it (wrongly) perceives to be an error in the media cosmos.
Apparently in pursuit of Ailes' version of balance, he confesses that Fox News promotes his own blend conservative ideology. It was Ailes, according to Kurtz, who "cooked up" Fox's recent Regulation Nation series. Ailes tells Kurtz that he thinks "regulations are totally out of control":
Ailes raises a Fox initiative that he cooked up: "Are our producers on board on this 'Regulation Nation' stuff? Are they ginned up and ready to go?" Ailes, who claims to be "hands off" in developing the series, later boasts that "no other network will cover that subject ... I think regulations are totally out of control," he adds, with bureaucrats hiring Ph.D.s to "sit in the basement and draw up regulations to try to ruin your life." It is a message his troops cannot miss.
This series just happened to be perfectly inline with the Republican Party's message of the week.
How do you run afoul of the network boss? By unbalancing the network and not reporting from a conservative point of view: "Ailes keeps a wary eye on anchor Shepard Smith, who occasionally backs aspects of the Obama record: 'Every once in a while Shep Smith gets out there where the buses don't run and we have a friendly talk.' "
As for the network's involvement in the Republican Primary? Some expressed surprise that Fox hasn't taken sides, crediting the network for its newfound neutrality. They quickly forget Ailes failed to recruit his preferred candidate, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, into the race. Now Ailes knows his power is based on Fox's perceived neutrality between Republican candidates. Each of the top Republican contenders made a pilgrimage to kiss their Svengali's ring. Ailes now sits in the middle, with each member of the field knowing that Fox's audience will ultimately pick the Republican who will face off against President Obama.
When the primary contest ends, nobody should be surprised when the network returns to its war on Obama. When the network does, remember Ailes' confessions:
1. - Balance is not providing viewers with the conservative and progressive point of view, instead it is about balancing the phony notion of liberal bias in the mainstream media.
2. - Ailes' narrow ideological leanings create major portions of network coverage such as its "Regulation Nation" series, where Fox personalities -- among other things -- spoke out against child labor laws.
3. - Providing any balanced coverage earns you a sharp rebuke from the boss for getting "out there where the buses don't run."
In light of the ongoing News Corp. scandal, Media Matters offers a look at Fox News president Roger Ailes' record on race and long history of right-wing extremism.
Does Rupert Murdoch now know the panic Richard Nixon must have felt when the Washington Post broke the story in 1972 that a $25,000 cashier's check earmarked for the Nixon campaign wound up in the bank account of a Watergate burglar. Or when it was revealed that Nixon's Oval Office had a taping system that recorded all his conversations. Or when John Dean told investigators he had discussed the Watergate cover-up with President Nixon three dozen times?
Pick your Watergate reference at will, but one thing is certain: The long-simmering phone-hacking story that has been hounding Murdoch for years took a dire turn this week for News Corp. and it suddenly has the possible makings of a career-defining debacle for the partisan media mogul. It's a debacle that features Murdoch starring in the eerily similar role as the one Dick Nixon played.
Like Nixon during his Watergate demise, the hacking story appears to have thrown Murdoch into a free fall with no safe landing spot in sight. There doesn't seem to be any maneuver or strategy available to him at this crucial juncture that will make the blockbuster story go away, even for a price. And like Nixon, whose aides couldn't stop the Watergate bleeding, Murdoch is being hounded by a dogged newspaper determined (and perhaps able) to take him down, as well as by aggressive prosecutors.
And like Nixon's team, Murdoch's News Corp. has recently been unable to make stick the claim that the wrongdoing, and the knowledge of the wrongdoing, does not reach up to the very most senior levels of the company.
In other words, there's a perfect storm where loud portions of the British press, Parliament and the public opinion are raging against Murdoch this week and demanding someone finally take corporate responsibility for News Corp.'s abhorrent behavior, rather than desperately trying to find ways to kick accountability down the road.
It's true that over the years Murdoch has courted controversy and proven masterful at escaping lasting damage to his reputation or bottom line. But Murdoch is a stranger to being boxed in and being left unable to change the larger conversation. And Murdoch is a stranger to finding himself – as he has this week -- virtually without a single independent ally who will publicly vouch for his company.
Notes longtime Murdoch-watcher Jack Shafer at Slate: "I can't think of any jam that Murdoch has gotten into that's tighter than this one."
In case you hadn't heard, it's Chris Christie Cheerleading Week at Fox News. As Media Matters has noted, the on-air push to get the New Jersey Republican into the presidential race has been done in the usual heavy-handed Fox style, with regular bouts of gushing about what a natural leader Christie is. (He's a "warrior"!)
And yes, this obvious partisan push comes in the wake of the revelation that Fox News chief Roger Ailes is a big Christie fan and has been urging him to get into the race. So the way Fox News "journalism" works, is if Ailes is for something, then Fox News is for the same thing.
What that also means in terms of coverage, is that when Fox News gets behind a politician they also hide him (or her) from bad news. The awkward part for Fox is that Christie stumbled into a very large bout of bad news this week when the belt-tightening governor decided to ride in the state's $12 million helicopter to attend his son's baseball game, and then decided to ride in a town car the 100 yards between his helicopter landing spot and the bleachers.
But guess where the Christie `copter tale has not been a big deal? Fox News. According to TVEyes.com, since the story first broke yesterday, Fox News has mentioned the misstep, briefly, on exactly one program.
That's what "news" coverage looks like when Roger Ailes is in your corner.
If Roger Ailes thought Glenn Beck's farewell tour for his final, televised goodbye on Fox News this month would generate a ratings boost as past fans turned in to toast Beck's slow motion send-off, the Fox News chairman must be disappointed because it ain't happening.
Instead, Glenn Beck, which just last year became a ratings monster for Fox News, is going out with a (relative) whimper, not a bang. In fact, Beck's ratings for May were among the worst he's ever posted during his Fox News run. In that sense, Ailes made the right move in cutting ties with Beck: His show's audience has shrunk by nearly one-half since early 2010, at the same time that hundreds of advertisers, put off by the host's hateful name-calling and often bewildering conspiracy theories, have pledged not to do business with Beck:
How much has the advertising exodus cost Fox News? In September 2009, ColorOfChange, which was instrumental in launching the Beck ad boycott, published its analysis. Based on advertising rates it concluded that Glenn Beck was bringing in approximately $600,000 less per-week (or approximately $2.4 million per-month), than it was before the boycott began. Keep in mind, that's when 50 or 60 advertisers had jumped ship. Today, that number hovers between 300-400.
Using that $2.4 million per month estimate, since the fall of 2009, it's possible the ad-starved Beck show booked nearly $43 million less than it would have if it weren't facing a boycott. $43 million.
With that kind of unprecedented Madison Ave. mass migration, Beck would have needed extraordinary ratings to justify continuing his contract. But Glenn Beck just could not consistently deliver those numbers this year.
Additionally, here's a look at how far behind Glenn Beck lagged in terms of the number of ads Fox News was able to even run during the boycott-targeted program.
Beck's program did flash signs of its former ratings life a couple times in recent weeks. The first came on April 6, which was the day Beck announced he was leaving Fox News. His program that night grabbed 2.2 million viewers, according to Nielsen ratings. The second temporary boost came during the three-day period following the news flash of Osama bin Laden death, of May 2, 3, and 4, when news consumers flocked to sources of information, and when Beck attracted audiences of 2.7, 2.4, and 2.1 million viewers, respectively. The problem is neither Beck nor Fox News can recreate those type of one-time news events, which means his program seems destined to limp off the air, a shell of its former ratings self.
In fact, those three bin Laden-spiked programs represented the only times during the previous month that Glenn Beck topped the 2 million audience mark. By contrast, early 2010, Beck's show used to attract 3 million viewers, and for the entire year it averaged an audience of 2.25 million. But those days are long gone.
For the first quarter this year, Glenn Beck drew 1.9 million viewers, a decline of 30 percent from the first quarter in 2010. And specifically in January, Beck's audience was 1.8 million, marking, at the time, his worst Fox News ratings month. In the just-completed month of May though, Beck matched that low water mark, once again drawing 1.8 million viewers.
So yes, Ailes' decision to take Beck off the air looks like a smart one, financially. It was Ailes' editorial decision to put Beck on the air in the first place, along with the host's cavalcade of hateful lies, that was the big mistake.