NRO blogger Tim Graham has a stunning piece of news: FoxNews isn’t the jingoistic party-line conduit for pro-administration spin that you think it is, because Judge Napolitano gave a positive blurb to a non-interventionist book. (The book actually looks pretty good.)
Yes, that sure throws me for a loop. After all, what are years of shameless warmongering and administration loyalism compared with a book blurb? The premise of Graham’s “observation” is silly. Judge Napolitano, author of The Constitution in Exile (not exactly Cheney’s bedtime reading), is probably one of the last people still associated with FNC who speaks publicly about civil liberties in defense of them (rather than seeing them as obstacles on the path to Victory), so he is not exactly representative of the network’s news and commentary. FoxNews also still employs Alan Colmes, which must similarly prove that there is no pro-war, pro-administration bias at the network generally.
P.S. By Graham’s standard of political analysis-by-book-blurb, Sean Hannity’s blurb for Napolitano’s book would represent some actual sympathy with the argument that the federal government has overreached in the PATRIOT Act and detaining citizens without charge, when we all know that this is absurd. Hannity’s blurb, meanwhile, is just two blurbs away from Alan Colmes’ blurb. A product of media consolidation or an elaborate ideological web that unites both Hannity and Colmes? You decide.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 12th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
kranza
What are you talking about? Bill O’Reilly has frequently criticized the conduct of the war! He has said on literally several occasions that mistakes were made and a new strategy was needed. Now that the surge is a resounding success he has not said that recently but the next time mistakes have been made and a new strategy is needed I have full faith he will be straight with us again. Also Hannity has been very tough on Republicans regarding spending.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Daniel Larison
What I’m talking about is the overall tilt of their news coverage and political commentary, particularly as it pertains to the war and related matters. I don’t doubt that you can find examples (such as Napolitano) where people on FoxNews have broken with the administration on certain things, and criticising the “conduct” of the war is hardly shocking stuff, since it has come only in the last year or year and a half. (Virtually everyone has criticised the war from one side or the other.) I expect that there was similar outrage over Bush’s immigration position. Do you really want to tell me that FNC is not typically a conduit for administration rhetoric on foreign policy and a source of bellicosity towards foreign governments?
November 12th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
kranza
Yeah, that was sarcasm. I’m sorry, I screw that up all the time and I should really know better by now. But dammit–”/sarc”? Ugg.
They always support their claim of independent spirit by pointing out that they’ve criticized the war conduct or whatever. Hannity’s constant reference to some amorphous criticism of spending is my favorite though. I’m certain he’s cited it as an example of his principled non-partisan conservatism far more times than he’s actually, you know, criticized spending, however amorphously or perfunctorily. That’s probably true of the “mistakes have been made” concession on the war, too.
O’Reilly actually supported the Senate immigration bill! It was the best deal we were going to get, you see.
But while FNC’s opinion-mongers obviously lean toward the administration, it is, as with more liberal media outlets, the straight news that’s more annoying. As always with any bias in any direction, it’s mainly in what they put in and leave out, and the basic assumptions. They don’t so much shill for the administration on immigration as nervously downplay the issue. And of course on the war–well, the Brit Hume interview of Patreus is hard to top. Yes, there’s flag-waving and fear-mongering and foreign-country-bashing. But a special presentation from the surge’s face hosted by the channel’s main anchor? Unbeatable. I don’t remember if there was a single opinion expressed, pro-war or not, on Hume’s part, or even a factual inaccuracy. There might not have been. Just the show itself says it all.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Daniel Larison
No, I should have picked up on the sarcasm. I think I have been blogging for too long today, and I’m missing things that I would normally catch.