Let me get this straight -- someone at FOX News is in the running for the job of White House Press Secretary? What are the odds? Does this mean:
A) FOX really is fair and balanced.
B) FOX is really good at floating fake stories about itself, or
C) Bush loves guys he can call "Snowy."
UPDATE: April 26 11:12AM
Sure enough, Bush loves guys he can call "Snowy."
We broke the story about Tony Snow getting the job last week, and here we are. Today the White House made it official.
Tony Snow is the first pundit to get the position of Press Secretary. This isn't just some position in the White House, Snow has been given one of the most important positions in the government. After saying that Bush looks "impotent" and falsely stating that Jimmy Carter ordered warantless wiretaps on American citizens, now Bush rewards him with the top job at the Bush administration's most prized department -- PR.
The fact that Snow comes from FOX "Fair and Balanced" News just puts a layer of hilarious frosting onto the ironic cake. The Bush Administration has once again redefined ineptitude and political tone-deafness. Good luck on doing a heck of a job, Snowy.
Erik, let's not kid ourselves for one moment about ANY journalist being 100% fair and balanced, or at the very least, being without an opinion. Take my graduate class at Medill, for example:
3 open conservatives
5 possible moderates
22 open liberals
And don't even get me started on the instructors.
Just for the record, Bush's current communications director Nicole Devenish(sp?) is a graduate of the Medill program (2000, I believe).
Journalists having opinions? He's a major news anchor in line to be the official mouthpiece of the administration for christsake!!!
It's a slight step up from kids in your journalism class having political opinions, don't you think?
He's so good at being "fair and balanced" that the white house thinks he'd do a good job of stifling the media at every turn.
You can't make this stuff up.
I'm just saying, you shouldn't be surprised.
Practicing journalists have routinely been yanked from their stations in order to represent the interests of partisan bodies. We refer to it as "selling out" because we tend to make far more money working for businesses, lobbyists and politicians than we do working in "the business."
A more appropriate term would probably be "coming clean" because this is when journalists out themselves. Almost every corporate public information director I've ever met has been a conservative and a former journalist.
One other item that I missed earlier...
Most news anchors have no say over the material that's covered. That duty goes to assignment editors, news directors and producers. Now if he's an editorialist like O'Reilly, then he talks about whatever he wants, but he also produces his own show.
At the major networks, the top guys, most famously Rather, tended to have executive editorial control over news content.
nice ian--thanks for pointing out the fact that there is no such thing as complete objectivity...i think the difference is that the slogan at CBS, NBC, or CNN isnt that theyre "Fair and Balanced" unlike the crew at FOX...kind of problematic to make such a claim in light of your post no?
of course i also dont think theres much "stifiling" to be accomplished when it comes to the white house press corp other than perhaps Detroit raised, older than Jesus himslef Helen Thomas...finally, someone cool from detroit.
At this point I think "Fair and Balanced" is completely tongue in cheek on the part of FOX. When your top ratings winners are O'Reilly (at best a right-leaning moderate), Colmes, Hannity and Greta... all of whom are employed for the purpose of frequent editorializing, obviously the emphasis is not on unbiased news reporting.
I have to side with Ian on this one - it's pretty common for journalists to rotate in and out of corporate or political PR and information roles. In fact, most of those jobs require that you work as a journalist first, to cut your teeth and get a sense for how the industry works.
It's not like this is something unique. Lots of former Clinton administration officials are now members of the media, and at least one of his press secretaries was a reporter before taking on the job, and I'm not sure about the others.
But, Dave and Ian, this is something unique.
Never before has a pundit -- a man who has expressed views even to the right of Bush -- been given the job of Press Secretary. This is a highly important job, and it is unprecedented for a radio show host to get this, a cabinet level position.
And MB is right -- you can't make this shit up. FOX is perceived as a regular news channel by most of its viewers. But time and again it reveals itself to be ridiculously tied to not only conservative values in general but the Republican Party in particular. This is unacceptable and a clear violation of any semblance of journalistic integreity. Thankfully, good people like Ian are about to shake the industry up. Right, Ian?
Wait, I don't get it. Now you're complaining that a political appointee has political views? The job of press secretary isn't a neutral position, his job is to represent the administration to the media. The man's job isn't even to make policy, so I hardly see how his political views matter. He isn't claiming to be neutral or non-partisan, and it's his job not to be. Appointing someone who agrees with you to a political position is hardly unprecedented, presidents have been doing it for over two centuries.
Wait, I don't get it. Now you're complaining that a political appointee has political views? The job of press secretary isn't a neutral position, his job is to represent the administration to the media. The man's job isn't even to make policy, so I hardly see how his political views matter. He isn't claiming to be neutral or non-partisan, and it's his job not to be. Appointing someone who agrees with you to a political position is hardly unprecedented, presidents have been doing it for over two centuries.
Shake things up? I'll try, Erik. I'll try.
As for Snow, he was a political commentator as well as the rest, and was clearly identified as such. His comments about Bush and his policies being "impotent" clearly indicate this. Even within the profession, we don't consider these guys journalists.
Now, when journalists are operating under the guise of neutrality to skew perception, that's an entirely different story.
"Now, when journalists are operating under the guise of neutrality to skew perception, that's an entirely different story. "
Uhhh, like pasting the phrase "Fair and Balanced" over and endless stream of jingoistic, pro-Bush cheerleading?
And Dave, who is arguing that political appointees shouldn't have political views? Are we reading the same blog? Obviously a press secretary should have (or appear to have) stronger pro-administration political views than anyone. That's the point!
The idea that one of the lead anchors of the "Fair and Balanced" NEWS network is also the best person for the job of press secretary is a hilarious commentary on the joke that is Fox "News".
It's also fascinating that Ian and Dave seem to think there's nothing extraordinary or noteworthy about this whatsoever. Presumably Dan Rather could've become press secretary during the Clinton administration and they would've found no reason whatsoever to criticize him or CBS News.
MB, we're making a distinction here between people like Snow, O'Reilly and Hannity who are open with their views and are considered EDITORIALISTS and not JOURNALISTS. That is a key distinction.
You can use journalistic tools in your work as an editorialist. In fact, you should. However, in journalism programs we're always careful with this distinction. Once you've outed yourself there's no going back.
A Rather defection would have been far more serious. Snow was a radio host who typically supported, but occasionally ripped the Bush administration. An openly conserative news commentator joining a Republican administration should shock no one. If Rather defects, here's a guy who had editorial control over CBS news content for decades, and a guy who people would have trusted as a fair and impartial news source.
For the record, the two things that have hurt Walter Cronkite's legacy more than anything are the fact that he went on record with his liberal views post-retirement, and even made the statement that all journalists should be at least a little liberal, because without it "they can hardly be good journalists."
As far as I can tell, all that Erik and MB are saying is that Fox News isn't Fair and Balanced. Shocker! Do you guys want a Webby for your brilliant work of investigative journalism? I mean, seriously, who didn't know that? If you're not commenting on the guy as a Press Secretary, you're just calling Fox News a joke, and the fact that one of their radio hosts got hired by the administration doesn't even make my list of reasons.
Alright guys, now we're reaching some common ground here. Dave considers it obvious that Fox News is not fair and balanced, and I think that's great. But I didn't know you had accepted that. I certainly have plenty of "conservative" friends who insist that it is VERY fair and balanced. Glad to see you're not one of them.
I also agree with Ian's distinction between editorialists and other journalists. I guess I've just never seen anyone at Fox news who fell into the journalist category. I've seen even their bottom-of-the-totem-pole correspondents present stories with little, if any, pretense of neutrality (other than the F&B slogan).
So yes, if you accept the fact that Fox News is wildly right-wing/pro-administration, then it is perfectly understandable that one of their people would become the new press-secretary.