Reader Survey: Fox News Special Report?

fox-news-logoSeattle        My morning started with a long call with a young producer and 8-year veteran of Fox News Special Reports explaining to me why the special reports in depth documentaries were different from the regular whack Fox News.  What a job?  Her real pitch is that they had been “tasked,” as she said with doing a documentary on ACORN and she wanted to convince me that they were “fair and objective,” and I should be interviewed for the show based on my new book, Citizen Wealth.
Yes, I know that none of this should be trusted or taken at face value, so let’s get past that and look at the pros and cons.  I want your advice!
My publishers, Barrett-Koehler were the original contact.  They did what they could.  They worked out a tentative agreement that we would be able to get the general questions in advance and that the book had to be the framework, but my editor and the publicity guy were clear with me on the phone from Seattle that this was a first for them.  Fox News had never had any interest in any of their authors.

The producer was an advocate for her cause.  The format would be a “relaxed setting” with the interviewer and me sitting in chairs in a studio.  I told her my policy over the last year had been to not comment or get involved in any discussion of ACORN’s actions after I resigned, so they quickly agreed that there would be no question to me about anything after I left.  She is sending me an example of what kinds of questions they would have for me.  Hmmmm.

Most communications pros these days advise you to go on the air with the hateraters, because they have a significant audience that includes regular folks and that is who you try to connect with directly.  Judy Duncan of ACORN Canada and I were sobered when we asked our great Toronto leaders Marva and Kay and both of them said, “Yes,” they watched Fox News even in Canada.

Most of my friends and all of my family, say, “whoa, nelly,” ride past this dude.

The cons are that the incoming is ugly making it not fun.  Of course they will say the same with a picture of the book and a background picture of me anyway, whether I’m on or not.  The pros might be some big league exposure for the book, a chance to connect with friends and neutrals, and speak past the din to folks willing to listen and support the work.
Heads or tails.   What’s your advice?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

6 thoughts on “Reader Survey: Fox News Special Report?

  1. wikipedia:
    Slogan
    Fair & Balanced graphic used in 2005

    “Fair & Balanced” is a trademarked slogan used by the broadcaster. The slogan was originally used in conjunction with the phrase “Real Journalism.” Comedian and politician Al Franken used the slogan in the subtitle for his 2003 book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. In the book, he cites examples of Fox News’ bias. On August 22, 2003, Fox sued based upon its trademark on the phrase.[30] Fox News dropped the lawsuit three days later after Judge Denny Chin refused their request for an injunction. Chin denied the injunction and said that the case, Fox vs. Franken, was “wholly without merit, both factually and legally”. He went on to suggest that Fox News’ trademark on the phrase “fair and balanced” could be invalid.

    In December 2003, Fox News found itself on the other end of a legal battle concerning the slogan, when AlterNet filed a cancellation petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to have Fox’s trademark rescinded as misdescriptive. AlterNet included the documentary film Outfoxed as supporting evidence in its case.[31] After losing early motions, AlterNet withdrew its petition and the USPTO dismissed the case.[32]

    [edit] Controversies
    Main article: Fox News Channel controversies

    [edit] Allegations of political bias

    Some critics and politicians have accused Fox News of having a bias towards the political right or Republican point of view at the expense of neutrality.[33][34] Murdoch and Ailes have reacted against allegations of bias, with Murdoch claiming that Fox has “given room to both sides, whereas only one side had it before.”[35][36] In 2004, director Robert Greenwald produced the documentary film Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism, which argues that Fox News has a conservative bias, including as evidence internal memos from editorial Vice President John Moody which the film claims exposes attempts to alter news content. This was later distributed on DVD by MoveOn.org.

    [edit] Talking points from Bush White House

    While promoting his memoir, What Happened, Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary (2003–2006) for former President George W. Bush stated on the July 25, 2008 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews that the Bush White House routinely gave talking points to Fox News commentators — but not journalists — in order to influence discourse and content.[37] McClellan stated that these talking points were not issued to provide the public with news; instead, they were to provide Fox News commentators with issues and perspectives favorable to the White House and Republican Party.[37] McClellan later apologized to Fox News commentator, Bill O’Reilly for not responding to Matthews’ suggestion that “Bill” or “Sean” received the talking points; McClellan said he had no personal knowledge that O’Reilly ever received the talking points. Furthermore he pointed out “the way a couple of questions were phrased in that interview along with my response left things open to interpretation and I should not have let that happen”.[38]

    Vote: NO

  2. Don’t be drawn into this bullshit Their goal is to smear acorn and nothing else.

  3. I was reading the streamer at the bottom of FoxNews the other day and they had some report about ACORN currently being sued in 14 different cases — and we know they’re all bogus and inspired/paid for by right-wingers. At the same time, one of their wackos was spewing something about how ACORN had tried to commit election fraud in 2008.

    They want a piece of something they can lie and distort into their right-wing propaganda big-lie machine.

    I can’t imagine they are interested in the book. So that leaves ACORN as the subject of their interest. I would vote NO — Don’t Feed the Animals.

  4. if they agree the story is the book, i don’t think they can’t bring anything you can’t handle, do it and do it now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *