| Author |
Message |
|
| VTexan |
Posted - 12/2/2012 10:16:54 AM | show profile | flag this post
Yeah, but Stop
...you're discounting there being any substance to the guest's claim. Given that Fox News' President, Roger Ailes was a media consultant for Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush...this isn't an insult created out of whole cloth, pulled out of the blue, created on the spot.
There's a REAL history here.
"Fox News ran more negative stories on Obama than did the rest of the media — 40% vs. 29%. Fox News trailed other media in positive reports on Obama — 25% vs. 36%."
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117994881?refCatId=14
|
|
| stopbs-- |
Posted - 12/2/2012 4:48:38 PM | show profile | flag this post
Another view:
VTexan says: "There's a REAL history here.
"Fox News ran more negative stories on Obama than did the rest of the media — 40% vs. 29%. Fox News trailed other media in positive reports on Obama — 25% vs. 36%."
Perhaps, VTexan, Fox might be one of the few outlets daring to report the truth. Perhaps. I am sure that many here would say the same about MSNBC. A large part of the equation is "What do you view as negative?" Some viewers feel that just hearing the "other side" of a debate is casting their guy in a negative light. (Anyone in an editorial position, has likely fielded those calls.)
In any case, there is no point in letting anyone attempt to lead your anchor into a brawl on a NEWS PROGRAM. The guest was baiting an anchor, on an objective program, into trying to defend a position. If it was "The O'Reilly Factor," which is a Fox commentary show; then sure, go for it. But since your News talent should not be taking an overt position on air and the guest had just insulted Scott's employers and, by extension, Scott; there were few responses available to Scott in the confines of his job, except to be polite and act "above it."
Do I think the situation could have been handled more eloquently (going from the report I read?) Yes. I've stated the best response. The producer, EP, or other manager likely feared that Scott lacked the agility for a quick, reasoned response. I don't know if that's true or fair to Scott. I have not seen him tested. I have seen Kelly handle tough situations beautifully. She's also an attorney, so nothing seems to shake her.
The fact that you, VTex, agree with the guest, does not change a news manager's duty to help keep his/her anchors out of the muck.
|
|
| stopbs-- |
Posted - 12/2/2012 5:38:16 PM | show profile | flag this post
History, indeed.
No wonder you said that there's "history here," VTexan. Your report is from the 2008 election.
I go back to how ridiculously easy it is to play with statistics, not to mention how we can all pick parts of an article which happen to support our world view. From your link:
Yet even on Fox News, the study noted, McCain’s "negative stories outweighed positive ones by almost two to one." Also, the proportion of negative stories about Obama and McCain were identical at 40% of all Fox News stories about each candidate. And while Fox trailed other media in positive stories about Obama, the cabler reported more positive stories on Obama than on McCain — 25% vs. 22%.
"In cable, the evidence firmly suggests there now really is an ideological divide between two of the three channels, at least in their coverage of the campaign," the study said. "On the evening newscasts of the three traditional networks, in contrast, there is no such ideological split. Indeed, on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere."
Now, what have we REALLY learned?
|
|
| con |
Posted - 12/3/2012 9:02:05 AM | show profile | flag this post
"Fox News ran more negative stories on Obama"
if this is the standard-
in 2008, obama received the most positive press coverage of any president-in history.
in 2012, cnn and msnbc ran more negative stories about romney than obama. cnn and msnbc ran more positive stories about obama than romney.
this according to pew research.
so cnn and msnbc is part of the dnc? using your logic, yes indeed.
|
|
| VTexan |
Posted - 12/3/2012 2:18:33 PM | show profile | flag this post
Stop BS
I just googled whatever it was I googled and that was the first story that came up. I sure didn't have 2008 in my search terms.
But regarding your point about an anchor being led into the muck: if an anchor's professional--and I don't include Bill O'Reilly into this--there are perfectly legitimate ways of conducting that interview without going into the muck. The guest made a pretty damning comment. Noting that it was precisely that, and asking him for evidence to prove his point is a perfectly legitimate and professional thing to do.
The problem the anchor had was that the guest could have made the point that I did--that the network's President had been the PR head for the Republican party serving three Republican Presidents, thereby giving strong evidence to prove that point. The producer in the booth didn't want to go there, and ended the interview early. I can't say I blame him, but to explain it away as the Pulitzer Prize Winning guest, who's imminently qualified to speak on Bengazi, was just a nobody blowhard...isn't serving the truth.
|
|
Log in to customize alerts, subscribe to newsletters, and apply to jobs.
June 4, 2013 | San Francisco
