The Individualist: PBS vs. Fox News

Posted by Joe Rivett on 06.30.2006

Why ratings for Fox News have fallen...

Unfortunately, because I have not registered for the fall, my email account does not work so I was not able to respond to any emails. However, I was able to read them and most were negative. They were not negative because my argument was not sound. They were negative because I was acting like a liberal. Is it me or is liberal beginning to sound like the N word?

Not one emailer disputed my claims that Dick wanted to go to war and make Iraq his centerpiece of remapping the Middle East. Not one emailer disputed the charges with Joseph Wilson and the fact that the Bush Administration planned on war long before the actual war.

Yet, my thoughts were dismissed because I cited PBS as a source. And to some conservatives PBS has a liberal bias. Apparently, PBS hates President Bush.

First of all, PBS is funded by the government. Thus, it has to be somewhat fair otherwise the majority Republican Congress can stop the funding. Secondly, the man who runs PBS is a Republican. Thirdly, they are so balanced that its two main anchors: Jim Lehrer and Gwen (I can't remember her last name) moderated two of the three presidential debates. Lastly, PBS used many sources in its Frontline documentary, (CIA agents and Bush Administration people) and offered Cheney and Scooter a chance to appear in it to dispute the charges, and they didn't.

PBS is not liberal, liberals like PBS because it goes into details. It does not focus on entertaining the viewer like Fox, CNN and MSNBC but rather it educates the viewer.

Even if there was a slant to the news, it doesn't make what PBS says completely wrong. They may have a liberal bias but that doesn't mean that when they report something, it has no merit. If Fox News reports something about a Democrat that is negative, I do not automatically assume that they are biased and therefore the story must be bullshit. So screw all of you for accusing me of being a liberal and citing a liberal source. And even if I was a liberal, it doesn't make my points automatically wrong.

Speaking of Fox News… Fox News once revolutionized cable news. Out of no where, it struck a chord with many Americans and it grew rapidly. Eventually, Larry King, the king of cable news began to slide and in his place were O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes. Fox News added an entertainment side of the news and allowed its "reporters" to give opinions as well as the "Big Story".

The other approach Fox News took was to have a conservative slant. Yes, Fox claims to be fair and balanced but I can think of only two regular liberals: Alan Colmes and Juan Williams. They are effectively countered by Brit Hume, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, John Fund, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Charles K.

This past week I heard on the news that Fox News' ratings fell twenty-two percent and President Roger Ailes is not happy. He believes the reason why ratings have fallen is that the workers at Fox News have become complacent instead of innovative and finding fresh material and faces.

I agree with Roger. Over the last couple years, my Fox News viewing time has significantly decreased. Fresh material is definitely a problem at Fox News. For instance I would occasionally watch the O'Reilly factor, however, the man repeats himself constantly. I am tired of hearing now the New York Times is biased. Duh Bill we know that. I am tired every year of hearing there is a war on Christmas every HOLIDAY season. Still I like to see what O'Reilly is up to because every now and then he can have a very strong show. For example, tonight he had an amazing interview with John Kerry where he was able to force Kerry to give more than just generic answers. O'Reilly isn't the only one with this problem; Greta Van Susshit has something about Natalie Holloway every day. Does anyone care about her?

Even though Roger has a point, there are other reasons ratings at Fox News are down.

Reason #1 – Competition – To compensate for my decreased Fox time, I increased viewing the other news stations. This year I watch many people I never really watched before such as Keith Olberman, Tucker Carlson, Anderson Cooper, and Lou Dobbs. There is also competition from John Stewart and Stephen Colbert who are both informative and hilarious. Despite all of this healthy competition, Wolf Blitzer still has a job?

Reason #2 – Bush's popularity – When the president has an approval rating in the 70s, naturally people are going to want to watch the news program that is the most positive. For awhile Fox benefited from Bush's popularity but now people angry at the Bush Administration want to see the media go after the president. Bush going on a program with Brit Hume is boring because you know there will not be any tough questions.

Reason #3 – No Big Stories – After Hurricane Katrina not one major story has yet to happen or come out where you just had to turn on a news station. During the build up to the Presidential Election, I was glued to cable news. They covered it constantly and did a great job. When the Towers fell I watched the news constantly for months. However, nothing interesting has happened and maybe that is why I see alleged Duke Rape cases that I don't care about appear everywhere. Even Howard Dean hasn't said anything stupid in a while!

Fox News is continuing to lose viewers because it is not innovative and quite repetitive. The obvious conservative slant does not help matters when the majority of Americans including myself do not support the president. Because of this, I have turned to PBS and Comedy Central for the majority of my TV news. PBS is great because it dissects an issue that the networks only give a few minutes of time to. Comedy Central is great because they show clips from C-Span displaying what our politicians are really like when they aren't voting. I guess the trick to getting me to watch the news is informing me while making me laugh.