All Hail Fox 12 News

Brian Wagner

WWeek this week took a look at the method behind the mayhem of Fox 12 at 10 pm. What they revealed wasn't pretty, nor was it surprising. I stopped watching any type of televised news other than the Daily Show (which is no more faux-news at times than Neil Cavuto) years ago. Like a candy bar, televised news is an unhealthy rush of primal sensations that excites and titilates while subtly injuring the body politic. But that is old news.

No one should be shocked by WWeek's article, though it made for interesting reading. What set my blood boiling was the arrogance of Fox 12's news director, Patrick McCreery. Discussing criticism that his news doesn't reflect reality in Portland, he argues, "If it's not reflective of the community, why are ratings growing? That's what the rating system is there for--to reflect the community. Some stations take the approach that they know what Portland needs and they're going to force-feed it to viewers."

This sort of argument is something the head of TNT should be making to explain why his network likes making their own movies; this is not an honest argument for a journalist to make. Anyone who studies human behavior, even at the layman's level, knows that people don't have a solid grasp of what life is like--how am I supposed to know if my city is safe if I live in a nice secluded neighborhood? How? I turn to the news. And the news, if it is Fox 12, tells me my next door neighbors are meth addicts, my father sells cough medicine from the back of his pickup, my cousin Louie is an online pervert, and the mailboy might be a gangster. If I hear that my life is getting more dangerous, hell yes am I going to turn on the news and watch the only station that tells it as it is.

But what if that isn't how it is? What if Fox 12 is taking the bad seeds and representing them as part of a much larger, nonexistent population that we must fear? M

cCreery has to realize that scandal, crime, and drugs sell--he need only look to Murdoch's first major US conquest, the New York Post. For decades now it has been criticized for feeding off fear, creating divides where there are none, and misrepresenting the truth whenever the truth gets in the way of circulation numbers. I thought Portland was generally safe from the Aussie's type of faux-journalism, but WWeek has done us a nice little duty by showing us that while Fox 12 may "make" good news, their brand of news doesn't represent responsible journalism. And that is what angers me. Not that I didn't know this type of TV news existed, but that a Portland news manager could so blatantly misrepresent his success.

Fox 12 is feeding off our fear. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb explained in the NYTimes today, in a discussion on how we aren't wired to react effectively to terrorism:

"[The] emotional system can be an extremely naïve statistician, because it was built for a primitive environment with simple dangers. That might work for you the next time you run into a snake or a tiger. But because the emotional system is impressionable and prefers shallow, social and anecdotal information to abstract data, it hinders our ability to cope with the more sophisticated risks that afflict modern life.

For example, the death of an acquaintance in a motorcycle accident would be more likely to deter you from riding a motorcycle than would a dispassionate, and undoubtedly far more representative, statistical analysis of motorcycles' dangers. You might avoid Central Park on the basis of a single comment at a cocktail party, rather than bothering to read the freely available crime statistics that provide a more realistic view of the odds that you will be victimized.

This primacy of the emotions can distort our decision-making. Travelers at airports irrationally tend to agree to pay more for terrorism insurance than they would for general insurance, which includes terrorism coverage. No doubt the word "terrorism" can be specific enough to evoke an emotional reaction, while the general insurance offer wouldn't awaken the travelers' anxieties in the same way."

Fox 12 plays on these fears without regard for the larger, more dispassionate, and less ratings-inspiring picture. Good thinking for a TV show, irresponsible thinking for anything that brands itself as new. Fox 12 thinks it provides what Portlanders want? What about what we need? Do they even stop to consider what we'll watch when we place our trust in the media and what they, as journalists, have an obligation to provide, such as truthful framing of issues? Thank you, but I'll change the channel.

  • theanalyst (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Fox 12 features crime, but the other news programs aren't much better. My spouse and I used to watch local news, but we gave up some time ago. After seeing the hundred thousandth "consumer alert," or some cripped dude getting his handicapped van stolen (or returned), or lost (or found) dogs, or some other obligatory "human interest" story, we just gave up.

    We just came to accept the fact that consumers have problems, handicapped people get their vehicles stolen and returned, and dogs get lost and found. But we don't need to hear about it every night. If any of that changes, somebody let me know.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I couldn't agree more. Sometimes when we're bored my husband and I watch it just to laugh at the props the reporters hold up during every story. But honestly, I am so sick of seeing the worst kind of people interviewed following the worst kind of crimes, while really important stuff is going on and nobody is talking about it. It's as insidious as the incessant focus on Fox News Channel on the missing girl in Aruba or Lacy Peterson or the runaway bride. They play to the basest impulses in all of us - the rubbernecking, can't-take'the-eyes-off-the-wreck thing. Meanwhile, their viewers are like deer caught in the headlights as the semi bears down.

  • Norm! (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree that Fox 12 "news" exploits viewers' fears and is an example of the worst type of media coverage. However, the fact is that Fox 12 is a for-profit commercial TV station in a very competitive business. I wouldn't blame Fox for doing whatever it can to be successful in its business. Afterall, the others stations are not very different from Fox 12 and will probably eventually imitate it. If Fox 12 ever crosses the increasingly distant line to bad, exploitive "journalism", then consumers can react against Fox 12 and its advertisers.

    The real question is, why Fox 12's competitors have not tried to attract Portland's supposedly liberal community with the same attractively-packaged, entertaining, and investigative news reporting. It seems KGW or some other media should be able to tap into the city's progressive base (besides OPB).

  • Sid Leader (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As a former news producer in Portland, I can tell you there is barely enough real news in Portland to fill an "A" section, much less an hour. KATU ND Mike Devlin and I used to joke about it during the newscasts. That's why he went to Houston.

    So, the folks with the goofy grins at KPTV who can't cut it in the big markets and at the network, stoop to scare tactics that would make ol' TailGunner Joe proud. Roy Cohn too.

  • Jim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    All of this is offensive and destructive, true, but wait; there's more! We also have the AWFUL Fox graphics! Yikes! They're constantly zooming in on twirling logos and sound FX from a 13 year old's bad Flash animation. It's so amateurish and garish one has to wonder why they don't invest in some sort of art direction. Surely they could find a community college intern who could come up with something LOTS better than their current, over the edge gee-whiz technology! My eyes hurt.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It is abundantly clear that the profit motive does not and will not bring us the information needed as citizens and comunity members.

    The answer: well-funded, independent public media.

  • (Show?)

    Fox is not unique at all in the local market with the sensationalism. They know their market, and since a huge percentage of adults don't vote and way more than a majority never pay attention to policy issues except for a couple of weeks every two years, they are just going with the flow.

    So Brian's very astute remarks about our fear based decision making probably extends to station managers and program directors as well. Especially here in the U.S. we seem to be subject to a lethal mix of naivete and urban legend based cynicism which leads us to conclusions and conventional wisdom that's wildly off the mark.

  • (Show?)

    to be fair, Fox 12 isn't owned by Fox News; it's owned by Meredith. There is no connection, that I know of, between the national and local news organizations.

    That said, the obvious answer to the schmuck GM is that they are only on the air because the public GIVES them the waves to broadcast over. Furthermore, their end of the deal is to provide a public service, of which a news division has always been the most prominent vehicle. If one accepts that this style of hype news does not serve the public, there is a valid argument that they are abusing their license.

    If you believe Fox to be abrogating their responsibilities as a broadcaster, I encourage you to file a complaint with the FCC, asking that their license be reviewed.

  • Norm! (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tom Civiletti: "The answer: well-funded, independent public media."

    Where does the funding come from? Income tax? TV set tax? Telethon? Medicinal pot sales tax?

    And is there such a thing as "independent public media". Is OPB or KBOO truly independent? KBOO obviously panders to its particular listener base. And as OPB becomes more dependent on its donating listeners and corporations, it will naturally be more inclined to keep its coverage the most bland and least offensive/controversial.

    Instead of betting on a pipe dream, why not return to reality and consider a commercially-viable plan. Afterall, Comedy Central's Daily Show seems to have created a profitable news show while being informative and entertaining. (Yes, I consider TDS informative because often covers newsworthy stories omitted in the 24/7 "news" channels.)

  • glenlivid (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Fox news is literally the funniest show on TV...if you get the joke. I'm guessing that many people don't understand the sensationalism of the news, or television programming in general, so they sit there getting programmed themselves.

    Last night’s episode was pretty typical with a CHILD MOLESTER update and a METH update, followed by a CRIME IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD segment. Are there really that many child molesters, meth addicts and is there really that much crime? I guess I’ll never know, because once Fox news starts to carry a story, I tune it out. It’s not that crime doesn’t happen, or that there aren’t any child molesters or meth addicts, it’s the fact that Fox News takes these segments out of the environment of statistics and reality. Fox News wants you to believe there is a child molester and meth lab in EVERY neighborhood, and the only way you can keep apprised of the situation is by watching Fox News.

    Is this reality?

    The other huge problem with Fox News, and most cable programming is what the makers of Outfoxed refer to as the “Fox Effect”; if sensationalism works for one network, other networks will follow the trend to maintain their ratings. I see meth stories almost every day in the Oregonian, and to be honest, I have no idea how big of a problem meth is because I regard it as sensationalism. The Fox Effect, by focusing on sensationalism, creates four major problems:

    1. Sensationalism detracts from real issues that affect every one of us. For every minute that Fox 12 focuses on meth, they don’t focus on more important issues like Portland’s education crisis or unemployment. These are real stories that don’t require buzz words or flashy graphics; these are stories we would all like to hear more about if someone were to cover them in-depth. On a national level, the Fox News Network has completely ignored serious problems within the Bush administration, the war in Iraq and America’s economic problems.

    2. If sensationalism creates ratings, it alters the programming of other affiliates to become more sensationalist themselves. In the end, no one covers real stories, choosing instead to find the next dirty little detail that grips our most primitive attention.

    3. It perpetuates an unrealistic view of the world, which, in turn, inspires people to adopt unrealistic perspectives and lifestyles. This is a greater problem than we can imagine until we see a paranoid populace arming themselves, zealously defending their property and endorsing crime bills that have no basis in reality. Should Portland create legislation to deal with meth, or is the problem one that can be handled by existing statutes? Are we all falling prey to the Fox Effect?

    4. By creating a distorted view of social problems, it can actually make people care less about social issues. As I said earlier, if Fox News carries a story, I immediately tune it out; I literally have no idea how big of a problem meth is, because I, like many of my friends, don’t follow sensationalism.

    Meth and child molestation are simply the local manifestations of Fox programming, but on a national level the network inspires even more insidious fears that sensationalize terrorism and spread hysteria of a nation in the grips of violent revolt from within. From sleeper cells to liberals, Fox is busy everyday inspiring dark anger towards whole segments of our society as well as building ethnocentric views against Muslims and, of course, France. Why do we hate the French again? Oh, that’s right, they didn’t want a military quagmire in Iraq. Sounds logical to me, but if you are one of millions of brain-dead Americans relying on Fox News for your perspective on the world, you might very well think that France has a decidedly anti-American agenda.

    I must applaud the Willamette Week for their story and Brian Wagner for submitting this to Blue Oregon. I would love to see Oregon reverse the Fox Effect, and see a drop in the ratings of Fox News 12 for their systematic ignorance about the city and the world we live in. I would like to see Oregon be on the cutting edge of news, and follow Bill Moyer’s example of in-depth analysis of current events. Reality is so much more fascinating than fiction or propaganda, and by raising the bar on everyone’s ability to follow current events, you might actually have the side benefit of educating the populace you are so used to controlling.

  • (Show?)

    glenlivid,

    The "Fox Effect" is real and much of what you say about it legit but I think you've gone off the deep end with your reaction to "sensationalism."

    Fox didn't create the meth issue, for example. Isn't it just as stupid to decide you are going to ignore a subject because Fox is hyping it as it is to decide it's a big problem because Fox is hyping it? Either way you are letting Fox determine what you think.

    The experts say that half the kids in foster care in Oregon are there because of meth. The cops will tell you that meth is driving the majority of identity theft and residential burglaries in the city and a lot of the car thefts. Residential burglaries went up something like 30% in E and SE Portland last year. Is that enough to qualify as a problem worth addressing?

    The Oregonian has concluded that meth is a big problem. You seem to have concluded that's just sensationalism without reading the stories. There have been a lot of facts in those stories that you won't see elsewhere that you could have used to draw your own conclusions about meth. The Oregonian has also concluded that there are big problems with government funding and school funding and have been running a lot of stories about that too. Why haven't you decided that's also just sensationalism? Because Fox doesn't talk about it much?

    There are legitimate news sources out there. Some are a lot better than others but all sources of news have their limitations. I pick the ones I think have something useful to offer and then read, watch or listen to them critically. My daily list includes The Oregonian, The New York Times, OPB, NPR and a number of blogs and websites. My not-quite-daily list is quite a bit longer. I don't believe everything any of them tell me, but I think I get a decent idea of what's what from the accumulation of what I hear from them. I don't seem to run out of things on my useful list in time to watch Fox News, either the local or the national variety so I'm not tempted to dismiss legitimate issues just because they've picked up on them.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Torrid Joe wrote:

    to be fair, Fox 12 isn't owned by Fox News; it's owned by Meredith. There is no connection, that I know of, between the national and local news organizations.

    TC: Channel 12 news carries stories from Fox News and Fox affiliates.

    Norm! wrote:

    Tom Civiletti: "The answer: well-funded, independent public media."

    Where does the funding come from? Income tax? TV set tax? Telethon? Medicinal pot sales tax?

    And is there such a thing as "independent public media". Is OPB or KBOO truly independent? KBOO obviously panders to its particular listener base. And as OPB becomes more dependent on its donating listeners and corporations, it will naturally be more inclined to keep its coverage the most bland and least offensive/controversial.

    TC: US income tax collections would be fine with me. I would consider other viable sources as well.

    "Independent" as in "independent as possible." The BBC does pretty well, unless international security issues are at stake. KBOO is not bad for a small time local outlet. Cable access TV production is fairly independent of power structures.

    I don't find commercial media worthless, but it's undependable. Public altervatives are crucial.

  • Brian Wagner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tom- you make a good point that independent media can only realistically be defined as "independent as possible." While I have problems with the BBC networks after living in the UK for 5 months, I agree that they, like PBS/NPR, seek to remain at a higher plane of responsibility to the story than a Fox 12 or KGW 8 does when commercial considerations dictate coverage.

    The reason why I will always support public broadcasting, and vehemently oppose conservative libertarians in their quest to abolish it, is because I don't trust the free market much less in the field of journalism than I do in other matters. If we looked to the free market alone, many sports teams would be unpracticeable--yet we never stop to think why we want them, we just accept that sports teams are a part of our life. I feel the same way about public broadcasting--despite the fact that they are not profit-making machines like network newscasts, they fill a niche which I find essential and expect would otherwise be neglected.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Brian,

    Indeed. The free market is great at many things, and wanting in some others. As far as news delivery, commercial outlets have several structural problems.

    The customers are more the advertisers and less the viewers. The customer is always right. There are many examples of the editorial-advertising barrier being breached, and the barrier is presently crumbling.

    Most outlets are now owned by a few corporations. That reduces diversity and promotes a pro-corporate bias in reporting. Also, there is now a much greater emphasis on profitmaking by network news divisions. Profit was once not as important as prestige, back in the days of Cronkite, Huntley, and Brinkley.

    Important news is not entertainment. Commercial news is certainly entertainment. Commercial news is, then, not the important news.

    Fear and loathing, sex and crime, disaster and cute animals, jingoism and cheap sentiment, commercial promotion disguised as news and talking points disguised as thought. This is commercial news and not only on Fox Channel Twelve.

  • Norm! (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tom Civiletti: "US income tax collections would be fine with me. I would consider other viable sources as well."

    US income tax collection is NOT a viable option. Any news tax would be politically impossible. I think even stereotypical tax and spend liberals would have problems with taxes going to some newschannel.

    I suspect the only reason PBS and NPR have been able to save some of their tax funding is that PBS has kids and science programming and both news operations have avoided making too many waves.

    ""Independent" as in "independent as possible." ... KBOO is not bad for a small time local outlet. Cable access TV production is fairly independent of power structures.

    "I don't find commercial media worthless, but it's undependable. Public altervatives are crucial."

    Again, I'm not sure what you definition of "independent" is. KBOO is not independent nor does it strive to be. It tailors its broadcasts toward its listeners' viewpoints. Although financially independent, most cable public access show do not attempt to show an objective perspective, but the (often strange) viewpoint of the producer(s).

    Brian Wagner: "...I feel the same way about public broadcasting--despite the fact that they are not profit-making machines like network newscasts, they fill a niche which I find essential and expect would otherwise be neglected."

    I also support OPB and get most of my news from OPB Radio and various internet sites. However, I've never been comfortable with the idea that OPB should receive tax funding -- especially in light of the last state budget crisis.

    Tom Civiletti: "...Also, there is now a much greater emphasis on profitmaking by network news divisions. Profit was once not as important as prestige, back in the days of Cronkite, Huntley, and Brinkley."

    Profit has always been the motivating factor in broadcasting -- especially in news. Weren't the original news programs prominantly sponsored by corporate advertisers like the Camel News Caravan? Prestige was only as important as long as it didn't get in the way of advertising.

  • (Show?)

    News 12 is an abomination, but the Willy Week article wasn't much better. To their assertions that the station was biased and unrepresentative they offered ... opinion. Does the station really report more violence? WW should have spent a couple weeks tracking the shows. Is the station out of step with actual events? A more expansive discussion of violence in society and its trends would have made a useful counterpoint. A wasted opportunity.

    As a former news producer in Portland, I can tell you there is barely enough real news in Portland to fill an "A" section, much less an hour.

    This depends on what you consider real news and the "real news" format. A station could EASILY put together an hour of news, but not in the current format. You'd have to run longer pieces, consider "local" more broadly, and report news that stations currenly consider verboten because they're "boring." But imagine if we got 10 minutes every day on the legislature while it's in session. That's cheap and easy to produce, and it would inform viewers enormously.

    The problem, obviously, is that we've de-regulated the public airwaves. They're not public anymore, they're purely private. Functioning on the profit model, you'll never see a 10-minute story on the legislature. But if all stations were compelled to cover real news as a part of their contract--a hardly radical idea--they'd serve the public interest AND provide real news. News 12 could still run, but it would have to compete with other entertainment.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff is correct that deregulation of broadcast media is part of the problem. Local news spits on the public interest.

    I'll say only that I disagree with Norm!'s critique of my statements. He might profit from reading some media writing by Solomon, Bagdikian, McChesney, or Alterman.

  • glenlivid (unverified)
    (Show?)

    doretta: "I don't seem to run out of things on my useful list in time to watch Fox News, either the local or the national variety so I'm not tempted to dismiss legitimate issues just because they've picked up on them."

    You really should watch Fox News...and then come back to the thread about Fox News and comment on it. It would be so much more relevant than telling me what the Oregonian says about meth or how you get your news.

  • Jeff Bull (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A lot of people have touched on the point I made, but none put sufficient emphasis on one side of this. In his original, Brian Wagner concluded with a discussion of what local TV news should be: to paraphrase, more in tune with what people "need" and, based on his comments, I would assume that to be a sober, considered take on the news. And, for what it's worth, I agree with the sentiment.

    But there's one question here no one is answering: would anyone watch it? People already enjoy the option of watching either FOX News or, say, the Newshour on PBS. I could be wrong here, but assume that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more people watch FOX. I wouldn't argue that this is a good thing, but it is reality. Jeff Alworth's point about "boring" segments comes into play here: you can find serious fodder on TV, both PBS and some of the stodgier cable channels - hell, you could watch C-SPAN - but the thing is, people don't. Moreover, you can't, and shouldn't wish, to compel them to.

    To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, we're stuck living in the country we've got, complete with all the people in it who, for one reason or another, don't think and believe like progressives.

    For those interested, I posted a rambling response to this on my own site (and an ass-covering correction as well). Just to warn you, I come off like a bit of an asshole in the thing, but as I said at the top, this has been coming for a while; the jabs are sharp, but not intended to be disrespectful. While I see the merits in Mr. Wagner's post, I registered a distinct under-current of elitism in it, the notion that people should be provided with information and in a way that's "good for them." As I said above, it's out there and, if people are interested in finding it, they will; Lord knows I have and, I'm guessing most of Blue Oregon's readers have. But that's your choice. Everyone else has a choice as well and TV ratings show that they choose what we all agree is swill. But that's their choice.

    Oh, one more thing: the idea of public funding for news stations is fine on paper, but it does subject said programming to the political pressures now afflicting PBS on the national level. Once public funds are involved, the content gets on the table real quick.

  • Patrick Allen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff Bull writes:

    But there's one question here no one is answering: would anyone watch it? People already enjoy the option of watching either FOX News or, say, the Newshour on PBS. I could be wrong here, but assume that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more people watch FOX."

    A quick web search seems to indicate that something like 2.5-3.0 million people watch the NewsHour broadcast. Fox averages .5-1.0 million viewers during prime time. Not completely comparable time windows, and I didn't double check those numbers, but I think the answer is "yes they would, and they are."

  • (Show?)

    "You really should watch Fox News...and then come back to the thread about Fox News and comment on it. It would be so much more relevant than telling me what the Oregonian says about meth or how you get your news."

    Now, now, glenlivid, you don't really want to announce so loudly that you can't handle the substance of my remarks, do you? Oh, wait, I forgot, you base your view of what is and isn't important in the world on what they hype on Fox News. I suppose it is foolish of me to assume any kind of rationality is intended when you comment. You brought up meth and the Oregonian, by the way, it's not like I randomly injected them into the conversation.

    I didn't say I've never watched Fox News. I know what they do and how it works, my credentials on that score are perfectly adequate. It's not like they aren't consistent.

    It just seems to me, that with all the news sources available in the world, you have to be--how can I put it delicately--less than optimally thoughtful to make judgments about what is or isn't important in life based on what you see there.

    Feel free to mount a vigorous defense of that approach. I'm sure Bill O'Reilly can supply you with some good quotes.

    <hr/>

connect with blueoregon