Fox News and the Phantom of Knowledge

The complete farce of Fox News is revealed in their hyperlink positing this question:

YOU DECIDE: Did the CIA Interrogations Work?

The CIA is under fire for interrogation tactics used after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. But did the interrogations deliver results and keep Americans safe? YOU DECIDE!

Now, let’s look at this logically, shall we?

The question, “did the interrogations deliver results?” is not the problem. The problem is in the command “YOU DECIDE.”

The interrogations either DID or DID NOT deliver results. There’s no “You decide” about it. It’s like asking, “Was George Washington the first president of the United States? YOU DECIDE.”

Ok, Fox News might find even that question a little iffy since they’re on this whole “secessionist” kick, so let’s put it another way:

“Is this statement phrased in the form of a question?” YOU DECIDE!

By obscuring verifiable truth under the guise of public opinion, Fox News relinquishes any responsibility it has to its viewership to report actual information. They therefore can afford to politicize even the most mundane and non-political event that occurs. For example, the factually verifiable story:

“President Obama shook hands with President Chavez today.”

But this is a boring story bound not to engage anyone.

So they turn into this:

“President Obama shook hands with the controversial figure Hugo Chavez, who called former President Bush an ‘ignoramous.’ Should he have done this? YOU DECIDE.”

By thrusting a past event – “he has done this” into the the conditional tense — “should he have done this?” — relegates absolutely every report into the realm of scrutiny.

But, you might argue, that seems fair to question the actions of a President. We’re all supposed to scrutinize things the President does and does not do.

Fine. Perhaps you’re right. But if it’s news, then that must mean there are SOME things that are “purely” reported on, correct? Such as “An earthquake occurred in San Francisco today.” How might such a statement be called into scrutiny?

So in order to maintain the ruse that they are, indeed, a news organization, they must occasionally appear as if they are actually reporting news.

But even this process becomes muddied with Fox News.

In effect what happens is that Fox News creates “phantoms of knowledge” — they do not report news; instead, they report what is being reported. They twice remove themselves from the “actual” story. This occurs through rhetorically distancing a fact from the report.

One device occurs this way:

Justifiable fact:
Gravity makes things fall down.

Fox News version:
“Sir Isaac Newton today stated that gravity makes things fall down.”

Here what we have is a report of a claim to truth — not truth itself. This makes Fox News merely the dispenser of the report — it does not claim to acknowledge that gravity does, indeed, make things fall down.

So, in real life, this is how Fox News augments the facts:

Fact:
Sea Levels are Rising.

Fox News Report:
“Today a group of scientists claimed in a report that sea levels are rising.”

By marginalizing the scientific community — which has reached a consensus on this point — to a “group” of scientists, they weaken the veracity of the statement. Furthermore, the word “claim” insinuates that the truthfulness of the statement has yet to be verified.

Thus, again, Fox News does not report facts — it only reports what others purport to be factual. This is phantom news-making.

None of what I’m saying is really new. Countless blogs (the most prolific being Media Matters) have devoted attention to their tactics. Columnists and critics have noticed that the Bush administration largely began turning to a more post-modern version of “truth” (mainly asserting that there is no truth) ever since 2003. (EJ Dionne’s 2005 article in particular is worth reading). What remains frustrating is that such tactics are no longer used solely by Fox News. Both MSNBC, ABC news, and CNN have increasingly and in some regards almost totally have followed in Fox News’s footsteps. Additionally, there seemed to be some understanding in the past of what stories were admittedly “too serious” to really call truth into question. This is a line that is being erased by the day.

I feel it’s largely going to get worse before it gets better. And I feel that something major would have to happen before any of these “news” organizations tone down their rhetorical devices of “truth.” I just fear what that will be, and what will happen to the public’s general level of being informed.

Fox News — Can it sink any lower?

To this question they answer affirmatively: YES WE CAN.

Today, a report announced that 598,000 jobs were lost in January ALONE. Unemployment is now at 7.6%, the highest since 1974. So what’s the big story that Fox News runs with?

Racism at Work

If you don’t think “Obama time” is code for that racist slur/stereotype of “Colored People Time,” then you haven’t read the article.

It contains the following phrases:

There’s a new time zone in the nation’s capital: Obama Time.

Even before the inauguration, Obama wasn’t a punctual sort; he arrived late to a Jan. 8 news conference on the economy that was aired live by broadcast and cable networks.

The president’s tardiness already appears to have spread to others in his administration. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has been routinely late for daily news briefings, sometimes by more than an hour.

Let’s leave aside the fact right now that the reason Bush was never late and always early was because he would only ask 3 main questions at all of the meetings — he wasn’t curious and didn’t WANT to know what was going on. If he didn’t understand something fully, but was running late, oh well. He had to be on time. Both his punctuality — and his dress code — were phony attemps at hiding competence.

But regardless of how Bush acted, to make a news story about Obama’s timeliness and then code it as “Obama time” — the code cannot be missed. I am not reading too much into this. If you don’t believe me, read all the comments at the bottom where people picked up exactly that message.

At any rate, the good thing is that when Fox News starts seriously attacking, that means that Obama is currently a big threat to them right now. This is the same news organization that called Michelle Obama — a potential first lady at the time and now definitely First Lady — Obama’s “baby mama.” This was the news organization that also called the Obama’s “fist bump” as a “terrorist fist bump.” All of these jabs came right as Obama was gaining solid momentum.

So I should take this as a good sign at least.