OUCH!
By Cori Dauber - Ranting Profs
I've made this argument before, but here's my take on the relationship between Fox News and more established media. Mainstream outlets, what some have called the "prestige media," the three broadcast networks nightly national newscasts, the largest, major daily newspapers, the newsweeklies, have for decades maintained a monopoly on defining the news for us.
They've not only determined which stories were newsworthy, they've also determined what narrative frame to use.
But because those outlets almost always agreed on what that narrative frame was, the fact that the frame was the reflection of a choice was suppressed. Making the constructed nature of the news, in essence, disappear. The news looked self-evident.
But then along came Fox.
We all know Fox tilts to the right. Now, you may think the story ends there. Or you may think the other outlets tilt left and Fox is therefore a corrective.
<font size=4>
Either way, the fact that Fox provides a different set of stories and a different frame for the stories they cover in common with other outlets means that whether or not you agree with Fox's frame, suddenly the gig is up: the fact that frames are the product of a choice cannot be hidden.
You may hate Fox and never watch it, but Fox has done you a great service.
Fox has shown us all the man behind the curtain, hasn't it?
And I think that's why the the older and more mainstream outlets' response to it goes far, far beyond what would be called for if it were simply an outlet that tilted right -- their response borders on the near-hysterical. I mean, there were reviewers during the combat phase who were writing that Fox was less objective than al Jazeera. Excuse me?
Fox, meanwhile, is just laughing all the way to the bank. |
