Fox Vs. MSNBC
A post-election panel at Penn State was surprised by student interest and questions about the influence of cable news networks.
Fox Vs. MSNBC
John Baer, Daily News Political Columnist
We were suprised by a turn the conversation took.
The "we" was a panel of four at a post-election gig at Penn State for communications and journalism students, faculty and what looked like a few townspeople (a crowd of a couple hundred; I'm betting most students were there under mandate, duress or for extra credit).
This was Tuesday night in the auditorium of the Hetzel Union Building, the student center on PSU's main campus.
The panel included yours truly; Lisa Lerer, a Bloomberg News reporter who traveled with Romney; Nikole Killion, a Hearst TV Washington bureau reporter, and Jim Brown, Sen. Casey's chief of staff and former chief of staff for the late Gov. Casey.
The gig was moderated by Russ Eshleman, senior lecturer, associate head of PSU's Department of Journalism and a first-class former Inky reporter.
Questions included views on best/worst media coverage of the campaign, how campaign coverage has changed over the years, the impact of social media, what it might look like in years to come and what voters pay most attention to during campaigns.
What surprised us was the amount of attention cable news networks got, specifically Fox and MSNBC.
I argued these outlets are "entertainment," not journalism, and offer little more than same-view ideology to the bases of both parties, thereby providing no service to average, open-minded voters or Democracy.
Lerer noted they do little but harden the lines of partisanship in a country clearly torn by same.
Killion made the point that it's all about ratings and money.
And Brown said it's tough to get a non-fiery "moderate" such as Casey on these shows since they're more interested in controversy than conversation. (He did concede such programs can help fire-up a party's base.)
Among student questions was a general "what can we do?" to which I suggested stop watching. I noted C-Span is the best place to watch debates, for example, because they're shown "raw," without commentators telling you what to expect before the debate or what to think afterwards.
Tough to say how much actual impact Fox and MSNBC has; you'd think they only reinforce the opinions of their respective partisan viewers. But here are a few fun facts.
The Associated Press reports that preliminary Nielsen ratings show NBC was most-watched election night, followed by the Fox News Channel, ABC, CNN, CBS, Fox broadcast (the sister to the news channel) and MSNBC.
NBC was the first to call the election for Obama.
And an interesting study by the highly-respected Pew Research Center released earlier this month addresses cable news and partisanship and says Fox and MSNBC stand out the most but that MSNBC is more partisan than Fox.
Yep, 71% of MSNBC coverage of Romney was negative whereas only 46% of Fox coverage of Obama was negative. Not that either was fair or balanced: the study says Fox had positive Obama coverage just 6% of the time and MSNBC positive coverage of Romney just 3% of the time.
I don't see much changing, but I do find it interesting that Fox and MSNBC are getting attention in this area and that at least some younger voters are questioning the value of constant cable political "news."
MSNBC doesn't have the ratings that Fox does - and for good reason. Just look at the comment sections on this site for a few days and the difference is clear: Fox "News" watchers watch Fox and only Fox. The propaganda machine, known as Fox "News", has created a permanent victim mentality among it's viewers. They drum up paranoia and hate, by creating stories like the "Black Panther voter suppression" story on Election Day. Nobody else "covered the story because it wasn't a story!! Low and behold, Goober Nation started posting about "media bias". It's like clockwork. Liberals tend to get their news from multiple sources and different points of view.
By the way, if conservatives don't have resentment over the lies they were told over and over about the Election, what makes one think that they watch it for news value? At the very least, the talking heads on MSNBC got the outcome of the election right.— wokmaster
Wow, you're ignorant for a media commentator. I'm dissapointed my University included you in an discussion of the media. I'll surly let them know about that.
Perhaps you'll comment about your Pew study (which has a mixed record as to it's apolitical positioning. It was founded by an arch conservative and is currently run by a hack from the Wall Street Journal for what that's worth).
With one point I can totally dismiss your contention that MSNBC is in some way similar or more politically biased than Fox - Joe Scarboro. This evil hack has a 3 hour show on MSNBC which for the most part is a conservative, Republican love fest. Please point out even the 1 minute of time Fox spends on left or Democratic policies. None.
I won't even mention that SE Cupp, that shrill rightwing harpie has a big spot on the afternoon shows.
Case closed.— tsdguy- Very true about Scarborough. SE Cupp is a joke but there is still no equivalent on Fox. They pick the nerdiest looking, least articulate liberals (Colmes, for example) that they can find to represent Democrats.
Let's face it - this nonsense about Benghazi has been completely fueled by Fox "News". Where was the outrage when 4,700 men died in an unnecessary war? Where was the outrage when Bush let our military commanders make a deal with the warlords in Afghanistan, during Operation Anaconda, which allowed bin Laden to escape into the mountains of Tora Bora? And why did the Bush Administration tap Tony Snow as their Communications Director? These are rhetorical questions. Fox is the propaganda arm of the Republican Party.— wokmaster - Joe Scarborough is an "evil hack"? Get a grip dude— Northeaster
- What's funny is that Baer thinks he works for journalists.— tr88
- Baer look in the mirror, you and your employer are no different than MSNBC… You are not a Journalist and you are not very entertaining.— CrashTestCorzine
- I think we can all agree that Fox News has the hottest babes on cable. So what if they are all dumb as stumps.— pic man
- I'd take Alex Wagner over any babe on Fox. — wokmaster
- Surprise ! I couldn't find the story released yesterday announcing the highest number of jobless claims post election came from Pennsylvania. And the adjustment for Pennsylvania last months number rose substantial.
Pa is going to bleed badly but you'll get what you voted for
— malice420dotcom - Actually, the jobless figures were revised significantly downward from the estimates that Fox and the Right went nuts over in early October. But these are only facts, and who needs facts.— Palestra Jon
- I was also shocked and surprised that jobless claims went up in PA and NJ after a hurricane. Wow! Who could have predicted that!— pic man
- John Baer, a journalist, LMAO.— junethe4th
- Fox news is carried on many more cable systems in the basic tiers. MSNBC is often a higher tier (in other words more $$$) offering. This explains at least part of the difference in raw viewership numbers.
I have no doubt that MSNBC is more blatantly partisan than Fox. The difference is that unlike Fox, MSNBC doesn't pretend to be something it's not. It is a progressive opinion network, not a news network. Their motto is "lean forward" not "fair and balanced".
So while MSNBC is probably more partisan, they are also more honest than Fox.— carl and sons - msnbc is cool.— etbarksdale
- I've noticed that the numbers for ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN detailing their negative reports on Romney are missing from this article. That kind of makes Baer's notion that only Fox and MSNBC are partisan. There are studies that show that the mainstream media are totally in the tank for Democrats, Obama and the left. There's now questioning of that fact any longer. But the stories still focus on Fox which is just different than the other news agencies.— Crazybrave1
John is the author of the book "On The Front Lines of Pennsylvania Politics: Twenty-Five Years of Keystone Reporting" (The History Press, 2012). Reach John at baerj@phillynews.com.
