This article also appears on Alternet.org.
Every media organization has had to, at one time or another, discipline staff who crossed an ethical line. If a reporter loses his or her cool and becomes offensive in the course of their work, they must be held accountable to some set of professional standards. Ideally the standards would be a set of objective criteria that focused on verifiable breaches of honesty or civility. A credible news organization must never tolerate a reporter lying or engaging in personal attacks. I repeat, a “credible” news organization…
Unfortunately, there is a disturbing lack of oversight in this regard. Often offenders are excused without consequence or, conversely, punishment is meted out to an innocent party. For example, NPR terminated their relationship with a couple of executives who were victims of false allegations in a video produced by James O’Keefe, the criminally convicted, right-wing activist best known for deceptively edited videos.
This past week presented a revealing lesson in contrast as to how different media enterprises deal differently with anchors and other editorial personnel who fail the test of principles that ought to govern all journalists.
CNN was put to the test this week when Roland Martin posted a Tweet that appeared to advocate violence against gays. Martin pointed out that it was not meant seriously and wasn’t even directed at gays, but at the sport of soccer. Nevertheless, CNN acted quickly to suspend Martin indefinitely.
By contrast, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta delivered a commentary on Sunday berating women in the military for complaining that they get raped too much (Trotta did not define what an “acceptable” amount of rape is). The news that triggered this revolting commentary was a Pentagon report that rape and sexual assault had increased 64%, a statistic that Trotta cavalierly dismissed. She further asserted that servicewomen should “expect” to be raped because they work closely with men. Fox News has had no comment on this matter despite fierce criticism from women’s groups and veterans offended by the assertion that male soldiers are innately animals and female soldiers should quietly accept assault as a part of military life.
These two examples illustrate the differences between a news enterprise that attempts to act responsibly and one that disregards such restraints in order to forge ahead with a sensationalistic approach and to pander to the scandal-lust of their viewers. CNN has faced this dilemma in the past by meting out punishments for ethical infractions to Lou Dobbs, Rick Sanchez, Octavia Nasr, Susan Roesgen, Peter Arnett, and Eason Jordan. MSNBC has done the same to Keith Olbermann, David Shuster, Mark Halperin, Markos Moulitsas, and Pat Buchanan. Some of these chastisements were warranted (Dobbs, Buchanan), and some were executions of petulant grudges (Markos), and CNN still inexplicably employs miscreants like Erick Erickson and Dana Loesch. So CNN and MSNBC should not necessarily be held up as models of morality. But at least there is some evidence of an internal criteria for ethical behavior of some sort.
Fox News, however, has yet to make any news staffer pay a price for professional indiscretions, despite the fact that things got so bad at Fox they had to distribute a memo asserting a “Zero Tolerance Policy” that warned of “letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination.” The memo was issued after numerous, embarrassing on-air blunders by Fox reporters and producers. But rather than undergoing discipline, Fox News bent over backwards to reward reporters who behaved badly. In fact, while other networks were firing such violators, Fox seems to be on a mission to recruit them. For instance: Juan Williams, Don Imus, Doug McKelway, and Lou Dobbs were all put on the Fox payroll after having been terminated for cause at other networks. Even Glenn Beck who, while no longer hosting his own program, appears regularly with Bill O’Reilly and others.
Fox maintains a clubby environment for recalcitrant reporters, and there remains a full stable of them on the air. Here is a selection of some of the more obviously repulsive people that Fox News should have fired for their absence of morality and professionalism, but to date have not even had their wrists slapped. And make no mistake, the job security enjoyed by these weasels is not due to carelessness on the part of Fox News. Controversy, hostility, and rabid right-wing advocacy are the hallmarks of Fox’s business model. It’s how they cultivate and reward the loyalty of their audience. What other explanation could justify this:
Todd Starnes: Unsurprisingly, Fox News has smeared the Occupy Movement from its inception. They have disparaged them as everything from unfocused to unclean to un-American. But it took Starnes, the host of Fox News & Commentary on Fox Radio, to equate them to mass murderers by asking, “What should be done with the domestic terrorists who are occupying our cities and college campuses?” By comparing Occupiers to the likes of Timothy McVeigh, Starnes is engaging in rhetorical terrorism and insulting hundreds of thousands of concerned Americans.
Cody Willard: This Fox Business reporter brazenly exposed his bias when he attended a Tea Party rally and feverishly barked at the camera this call to arms against the U.S. government, “Guys, when are we going to wake up and start fighting the fascism that seems to be permeating this country?”
Andrew Napolitano: The “Judge” is a notorious 9/11 Truther who believes that the attack on the World Trade Center towers was an inside job, orchestrated by agents of the United States government. That’s a position considered so crazy by Fox Newsers that it was instrumental in their campaign to get Van Jones fired from his post as a green jobs adviser to President Obama. But, in typical Foxian hypocrisy, it has no impact on the employment of Napolitano. [Note: The entire primetime schedule of the Fox Business Network, including Napolitano, Eric Bolling and David Asman, was recently canceled. But it was due to poor ratings, not content. And all remain active Fox News contributors.]
Bill Sammon: The Fox News Washington managing editor was recorded admitting to a friendly audience on a conservative cruise that he would go on air and “mischievously” cast Obama as a socialist even though he didn’t believe it himself. In other words, he lied to defame the President and rile up his gullible viewers. That would be cause for termination at most news networks, but probably earned Sammon a bonus at Fox.
Eric Bolling: Hoping to sustain Fox’s leadership in inappropriate Nazi references, Bolling accused President Obama of engaging in class warfare that was “forged in Marxist Germany.” And if that wasn’t asinine enough, he sided with Iran against the U.S. by accusing the American hikers who were held in an Iranian prison of being spies and said that Iran should have kept them.
Bill O’Reilly: Dr. George Tiller, a family physician in Kansas, was murdered by an anti-abortion extremist who may have been incited to violence by rhetoric like this from O’Reilly: “Now, we have bad news to report that Tiller the baby killer out in Kansas, acquitted. Acquitted today of murdering babies.” O’Reilly regards the acquittal of a doctor for performing legal medical services “bad news,” and the services themselves “murder.” But he never took any responsibility for fanning the flames of violent incivility that led to the actual murder of Dr. Tiller.
Col. Ralph Peters (Ret): In a rant that argued that the United States should fight back against our enemies with the same tactics they use against us, Peters turned the media into military targets: “Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. And like Bolling, Peters also took the side of our foes by suggesting, without evidence, that a missing American soldier was a deserter and that “the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills,” presumably by killing him.
Michael Scheuer: This former CIA analyst was concerned that the American people were not sufficiently afraid of future terrorist attacks. He regards that absence of fear as dangerous complacency. But he has a solution: “The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.”
Roger Ailes: The CEO of Fox News proves that a fish stinks from its head. In response to NPR’s firing of Juan Willimas for bigoted remarks about Muslims, Ailes let loose a tirade wherein he viciously attacked the NPR executives saying that… “They are, of course, Nazis. They have a kind of Nazi attitude. They are the left wing of Nazism.”
Liz Trotta: Ending up where we began, this abhorrent attempt at comedy simply could not be left off of this list. What started out as a verbal stumble became a call for assassination when Trotta said, “Now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama, umm, Obama. Well, both if we could.”
It’s difficult to believe that anyone could retain a job in the media after making statements like those above. These were not mistakes or misunderstandings. They are not out of context. They were considered, deliberate expressions of opinion that represented the reporter’s views at the time. Yet all of these people are still employed and active at Fox News.
To be fair, there is an example of Fox News firing reporters who crossed a line that even Fox could not abide. Steve Wilson and Jane Akre investigated a story that detailed the health risks posed by the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a milk additive manufactured by chemical giant Monsanto. Fox objected to the story’s negative portrayal of a major advertiser and ordered the reporters to make modifications that they knew were false. When the reporters refused they were fired. In the subsequent litigation Fox argued in court that the network had a right to determine the content of their stories, and even to lie, and that employees who declined to comply could be terminated as insubordinate.
So while Fox News has no problem with their analysts advocating terrorism against Americans, they draw the line when it comes to suppressing their Constitutional right to lie. Fox has taken great care to set their priorities and to draw their ethical lines in sand that is always under the prevailing tide.
[Update] This week racist Pat Buchanan was sacked by MSNBC and radio schlock jocks John & Ken were suspended for calling Whitney Houston a “crack ho”. But Liz Trotta, Eric Bolling, et al are still happily working at Fox.
15 thoughts on “10 People Fox News Should Fire, But Haven’t”
BWAAAAAAAAA!!!! You big crybaby. Grow the hell up. Go back to school and learn what context and comprehension.
Come back when you know what the hell your talking about.
“Go back to school and learn what context and comprehension.”
Ummm…oh, never mind. Do you have an example of my not knowing what I’m talking about, or do you just enjoy whining?
People who don’t know “your” from “you’re” should not lecture others on comprehension. Or school.
Mark has written a thorough and eloquent expose. Dave should be crying.
Mark, you forgot habitual liar sean kkklannity. That idiot should have been fired years ago.
Come back when you know what the hell your talking about.
Obviously it’s you who should go back to school and do some learning. It’s you’re, not your, dimwit.
Oh crap. I stole your comment without realizing it.
There’s a tacit assumption that runs throughout the article, and it’s that Fox News Channel is a television news service, or is engaged in television’s version of journalism.
I’m not under that assumption myself, and so therefore it doesn’t surprise me that News Corp would not fire or reprimand anyone in their employ for doing anything that would otherwise be considered reprehensible or unethical by a journalistic standard.
As a matter of fact, News Corp not acting in this manner, just seems to confirm they are not at all truly in the business of news or television journalism, rather than confirm they are lax or sloppy or even unethical in that business.
Fox News Channel is exclusively engaged in political advocacy, under the guise of being a news organization… it is no different than a lobbying firm being sensitive to the reputation of lobbyists, and so therefore deciding to call themselves “media” so as to better get their foot in the door.
By the way, Fox News Channel routinely airs commentary from lobbyists without ever identifying them as such (they’re usually identified as “analysts” of some sort), they are routinely and constantly lobbying the American people via the television and on behalf of certain industries and all things Republican, and so that further proves they are not even in the news or television journalism business.
As far their political advocacy goes, it is mostly just manifest suspicion and hatred of all things done or proposed by the Obama administration, in an effort to undermine the American people’s faith as much as possible, in that decisively democratically elected administration.
Likewise anything and everything done by the Democratic delegation in Congress.
Where’s anything journalistic in that?
It’s political advocacy, pure and simple… and as far as the people listed not being reprimanded or fired, for the slander and insults and hatred they hurl daily and hourly while on the job at Fox News Channel, I say that is their job, and as such, the very reasons cited for which they would otherwise be fired if in the business of journalism, they instead are probably all in line for raises and promotions News Corp and Fox News Channel.
I can’t argue with any of that, except to say that, as long as they have “news” in their name, they need to be challenged on those grounds. If they changed their name to GOP-TV it would be whole different thing.
Not only “news”…don’t forget the “fair and balanced” and the “we report,you decide” little things.
I read News Corpse but generally do not comment.
That is one of the absolutely best descriptions of Faux Noise that I’ve read……….thank you for the truth, your expressed it very well.
I try to listen to many different stations to make sure I am getting the most accurate news available. There are times when Hannity and others state their opinion that I don’t agree with, but it’s just an opinion. He is not a journalist reporting on hard news. It’s an opinion show. Just as Hardball with Chris Matthews and Al Sharpton’s show, which, i might add, is far more biased. They are alwasy bashing republicans. Is that right? I guess it is if you think they are wrong. Before you whine about Fox News. listen to the shows You think are telling the truth. The vitriol and hatred they spew is far worse than anything I’ve ever heard Fox News say. People always hear what they want. Listen to the letters O’Reilly reads at the end of his show. Half will say he loves a candidate, the other half claims he hates the same candidate.Don’t judge based on a part of a story you read on Media Matters or Huffington Post. It’s obvious who they always root for.
Did you even read this article?
Nothing I’ve said above is directed merely to people with whom I disagree. The examples above are not of positions on issues that I disagree with. They are offensive remarks that demonize people or advocate violence. There’s a huge difference.
But the larger point I am making is that, when lines of decency and civility are crossed (something both sides are capable of), the other networks have taken steps to punish the offender. Fox News either ignores or rewards them. That is the point.
dont watch fox if you think their bogus…it’s that easy! tune into msnbc.
Great article Now thats what I call “Fair and Blanced” you decide
All you have to do is read what what written by Obama’s team as he ran for his first term. Then you will find what the underdog does to win, and since it is a given that the liberal media is the largest institution dispensing the so called facts of any matter you choose to discuss (they love the Obamster), it is no wonder dissenting opinions are castigated to the fullest extent possible. No media outlet or pundit of either side may at any time claim the high ground. That is not their intent . Their intent is only to sway opinion to those people out there who do not have the brains to sift the wheat from the chaff.
Comments are closed.