Last weekend I had a rather animated debate with a self-identified Republican friend in a bar as part of an ongoing conversation about our political differences.
“You know what the motto of your party is?” I gently poked him. “‘I’m fine; what’s your problem?’“ “Aww,” he scoffed. “Isn’t that the way everybody thinks?” “No,” I pounced again. “My side’s motto is I can’t be okay until you are.”
He made a choking gesture and we laughed. The next day I caught the opening segment of Garrison Keillor’s A Prairie Home Companion on National Public Radio, on which he reported that since switching parties after nearly 50 years as a Democrat, he was relieved no longer to be worried about whether some child or spotted owl out there somewhere is crying for help. It was followed by a sonnet entitled “We’re All Republicans Now” followed by a musical tribute to George W. Bush on the aircraft carrier several weeks ago.
I don’t know about great minds, but apparently similarly situated minds think alike.
Richard Reeves, who must irk conservatives almost as much as Ted Rall, recently warned against becoming too giddy with power, as liberals did in the 60s and 70s. Considering the messenger and the fact that giddiness tends to preclude a sober assessment of sensible strategy, his advice won’t be heeded. On the contrary, powerful Republican politicians, administrators, business executives and other influential types will continue to exploit the atmosphere of fear, building their throne higher and higher until the throne topples over on its foundation of mud. Like the character Yertle the Turtle in my favorite childhood book, they will still be king of all they can see; it just won’t be much of a kingdom.
Meanwhile, there’s FOX, the cable news network once described by the comic Jon Stewart as “a cynical enterprise,” and the subject of a New Yorker magazine article entitled “Vox Fox” evaluating the validity of its motto, “fair and balanced.” I have yet to read the article, since the magazine is tough to track down in Springfield (another opinion piece). But I did catch the writer, Ken Auletta, interviewed on CNBC, who basically concluded “Fair and balanced? Not hardly.” Any casual, objective viewer already knew that. Portrayed as an in-depth investigation leading to the obvious verdict, the article examines the details, the examples, and the inside sources to make the case of FOX’s conservative bias.
What I already know is this. I know that FOX was founded by the staunchly right-wing Roger Ailes. I know that FOX is fueled by such outspoken conservative anchors as John Gibson, Brit Hume, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. I know that the only liberal hosts, Geraldo Rivera and Greta van Susteran, both focus primarily on legal issues and are both pro-prosecution. I know that FOX handily trounces the competition, which is no wonder in these right-leaning times.
The question is, why bother? Why bother steadfastly maintaining the “fair and balanced” moniker, often derided by the ratings-envious competing networks, when a slogan such as “your conservative alternative (to the nasty mainstream liberal media)” would not only be honest, but reinforce the loyalty of the core audience? With the notable exception of Juan Williams, why bother pretending the milquetoast, token Democratic panelists (who agree with the opposing side more often than not) “fairly balance” the discussion, or that token Democratic anchor Alan Colmes isn’t overwhelmed by Sean “That’s-What’s-Wrong-With-You-Liberals” Hannity?
Why insist “We report; you decide,” the subtitle of “fair and balanced,” only to “report” that ultra-liberal Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee took a limousine THREE DAYS IN A ROW from her Washington D.C. apartment across the street to Capitol Hill, so that the viewer will “decide” all liberals are wasteful and afraid of reporters? Why bother with a story the other cable networks declined to cover, and would FOX bother to “report” arguably bizarre behavior (which surely does exist) on the part of one of Representative Lee’s conservative counterparts?
And why bother creating, or attempting to create, cognitive dissonance, a psychological phenomenon in which one’s senses are in direct conflict with what one is being told? Why bother with the doublethink, a colloquial term denoting a downright lie, and why increase the frequency and volume of promos intoning “We are fair and balanced” as The New Yorker goes to press? Why not simply say, “We’re conservative, we’re the majority, we’re proud of it, and we know you are”?
At least until the throne collapses into the mud, why not admit that the conservative slant is precisely the reason ratings are so high?
It’s a mystery to me, or it was. Now I think I may have the answer. It’s not to reassure the conservative viewers they’re not so far to the right that FOX asserts it is what it isn’t. It’s to drive the liberals crazy.