Friday, September 18, 2009
Why did Fox run this ad in the Washington Post?
Here's the thing. The ad is not going to get more Fox viewers. It's not even going to keep Fox viewers in the fold. It will make no difference to viewership. It's a deliberate provocation of the other networks with no upside. The question is, why was the ad run?
Fox has, believe it or not, been taken over by the right-wing crazies. They were heavily pro-Republican before but this year the network has ditched journalism with the hyping of unresearched stories and outright lies.
Murdoch, or his son, or someone else in power at FOX is a crazed right-winger who is oblivious to appearances. Just get the message out about The Truth, is the clarion call.
UPDATE: The blog SNAFU-ed says this
It's hard to understand what Fox, or in this case, Faux News had in mind with the full page ad that ran in the Washington Post Friday, as well as in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, both owned by Fox's parent company.
UPDATE2: Joe Gandelman at the Moderate Voice has a longish post
, with links and excerpts. Of interest, this from Howard Kurtz' report
on the affair:
There is no evidence that The Post asked Fox for any substantiation. Ken Babby, Washington Post Media's vice president for advertising, declined to be interviewed.
The Post's Media vice president for advertising declined to be interviewed by the Post's Howard Kurtz!
I think it's hilarious how liberals are left scratching their heads about why a network news organization would seek to build market share among non-liberals.
"But" ... they puzzle out loud, "how does this help attract the only type of people in America -- liberals?"
Maybe they are looking to attract conservatives. How is that crazy? From a business standpoint, if conservatives are half of the population, and Fox brings them in, then they will capture half of the national viewership, leaving CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and the rest to divide up the liberal 50% of the viewing market.
Crazy like a fox.
They were the only network that covered a major conservative-friendly story. Why shouldn't they be proud of their scoop and advertise it to conservatives?
Anon: The point is that the ad is not directed at conservatives. It's directed at the other networks.
Your notion that it's fine that a network "news" organization would seek to build market share for any political leanings (left or right) shows how you view journalism: not objective, but tailored for an audience. It may make money, but don't claim that it's objective reporting.
If the ad had been printed in an industry magazine not generally sold to the public, then you would have a point. However, the ad was printed in a mass market newspaper, so how can you make the claim that the ad was directed at the other networks, instead of the public at large?
All journalism is tailored for an audience. The other networks' news was tailored towards the liberal audience by the minimal to nonexistent reporting of the 9/12 rallies.
How was not covering the rally at all an example of "objective reporting?"
the competing networks took umbrage. they responded by re-airing tape of their teabagger coverage in order to prove fox wrong. which is what fox and their anti-reform corporate sponsors wanted. the competing networks got played.