Fox News Mean and Snarky, Website Not So Much

October 15, 2010

(ChattahBox Op/Ed) – Having long been fascinated with the right’s massive media machine I’ve subjected myself to hours of indoctrination at the hands of Fox News’ bubbleheaded regurgitators a few of which are actually intelligent, which by the way also makes them kind of evil. I’ve spent less time reading the news on their website, foxnews.com. When I do it’s usually to compare how they covered a particular story compared with the rest of media world. Whenever I do this I’m also surprised by the fact that foxnnews.com reports the news differently than does the Fox News Channel.In order to give you an idea of what I’m speaking of, let me paint the picture for you. Before I sit down to watch Fox News I prepare myself by going over my “Fox News Viewing Checklist:

  1. Six pack of beer in fridge, for post viewing calming. Check.
  2. Removal of all items within throwing reach which may damage, TV. Check.
  3. Stress reducing squeezy (George Bush look alike). Check.
  4. Mouth gaurd to prevent damage to teeth due to uncontrollable teeth grinding. Check
  5. Doors and windows closed and sealed to prevent absurd Fox News comment induced obscenities from being heard by neighbors. Check.

Ok, now we’re ready. Bracing myself I click on Darth Vader’s favorite channel. Now the name Fox News is a misnomer. First there’s hardly any news. That’s not a joke, I mean even their news isn’t really news, but what I mean is, the station is mostly shows about political and/or economical opinion. With them and their Republican minions there really isn’t anything else that’s of import. Don’t get me wrong they’ll drum up some ridiculous social issue, which wasn’t an issue until they drummed it up, but even then, it”s only to gain political support. So, generally when you click on The Empire’s channel one of their many regurgitators is offering opinion in place of news. What’s so amazingly distasteful is not that they’re inconceivably pro-Republican is that they’re so damned nasty and snarky about it. They can not finish a sentence without raising they’re tone of voice to show their disdain. Sarcasm is used in place of saying what they really mean. An example might be, “Obama, isn’t a Muslim, is he?” By raising their tone at the “is he?” and by changing their posture and rolling their eyes, they’re telling their viewers that “yes, Obama is a Muslim” without actually saying it out loud. It’s fun little trick we all learned in grade school and all learned that it’s disingenuous and a wrong thing to do. This gives them deniability. So when Bill O’Reilly goes on The Daily Show and says, “I never once said Obama is a Muslim”, (this is an example, there’s no evidence he said this on the show) technically he’s right. Unfortunately for O’Reilly, Jon Stewart is much too smart for him and generally makes him look like a fool.

This goes on show after show until finally, I throw my bubble wrapped remote at the TV and head for the fridge for a little calm me down.

So, how is that different from fox.com? Well one would think think that there wouldn’t be a difference but there is. Fox.com’s website is actually a pretty good news site. I mean despite the fact that it’s content is oddly enough sprinkled with more sex, celebrity and gossippy stuff than I would expect, it actually has news. Of course you’ll find the usual conservative Republican, Tea Party stuff but it seems toned down to an almost civil level. I’m not really sure why there is a difference. Perhaps it’s harder to be snarky in print. Maybe because in the blogosphere it’s way too easy to cut and paste someone else’s boogerheadedness. I really don’t know but there is a difference.

I’m quite certain there is some evil and sinister reason behind the difference in editorial temperament between the two mediums. I only hope that Murdoch, Vader and Cheney will reveal the reasons before it’s too late to strike back.


Comments

2 Responses to “Fox News Mean and Snarky, Website Not So Much”

  1. Old Man Dotes on October 15th, 2010 11:50 am

    The difference is strictly a matter of litigiousness. Broadcast spoken/video media is “ephemeral,” and the lies that Faux News broadcasts are considered slander. The Web site is “written” and falls under the heading of libel. Furthermore, any changes to the Web site would be, in case of a libel suit, “evidence tampering.”

    Ergo, Rupert Murdoch, who has deep pockets, is much more careful about publishing “printed” libel than his usual slanderous Faux News broadcasts.

  2. shayne on October 20th, 2010 7:07 pm

    I like your take on this. good stuff.

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of ChattahBox.com - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of ChattahBox.com or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.