Saturday, May 15, 2010

How I became a Fox News watcher

Anybody who pays an ounce of attention to American news knows that Fox News Channel (FNC) has a polarizing affect on those of us in the country who delve into the daily news cycles. People love and hate the network, but not necessarily across strict party and ideological lines. But those who hate the channel wage a near constant crusade against its existence. My path to trusting FCN to deliver news in commentary followed a long and windy trail, and I feel like sharing that story.

I grew up in a house that indulged in the twenty-four hour news cycle. My childhood has memories of many nights of doing homework while my father sat at the end of the kitchen table smoking a cigarette while watching Peter Jennings, David Brinkley, or Crossfire and not uncommonly yelling at the television under an impulse that overshadows the fact that nobody on the screen could hear him. In my college years, I didn't really have the luxury of time to follow the daily cycles of the news. But towards the end of my college days, I began to make it a point to carve out a little slice of time regularly to watch the news. I tuned into MSNBC, not for any real reason besides I had seen plenty of CNN growing up, and I figured why not try something new. For humor, I started to tune into the Daily Show with Craig Kilborn. Every night of that show offered a good laugh or two that make it worth watching.

When I finally graduated I had the most of amount of free time available to me since five years prior, after a day's work I had my nights free to follow current events more closely. I stuck with MSNBC. In 1999, Chris Matthews hosted (and still hosts) a show called Hardball. He passionately offered opinion and commentary I found insightful and informative. Brian Williams anchored the chair for the nightly news on MSNBC's sister network, CNBC, and I liked the way he delivered the nightly news more than the traditional anchors. The NBC network was clearly grooming him for Tom Brokaw's spot for when the day came that he retired. Matthews, a Democrat, willingfully challenged the leadership of his own party. He criticized President Bill Clinton's conduct in the Lewinsky scandal, pardoning of the FLAN terrorists, and Whitewater just to name a few. Having read Matthews' books, I knew his heart lied (and still lies) strongly with the positions espoused by the Democrat Party. I knew it took guts to voice opposition in such a way in the face of his critics calling him a traitor. MSNBC also offered commentary shows by Dan Abrams and Jerry Nachman. Abrams had a soft spoken manner that presented a delicate approach to discussing issues. Nachman had a no-nonsense type of approach to issues that I really appreciated. (Tragically, he died at the age of 57 battling cancer in 2004.) Lester Hull seemed to do a good job in his reporting. I continued to tune into the Daily Show on Comedy Central. By then, John Stewart had taken over the show, and in my opinion took an already good show and made it better, always good for a few laughs.

Then, 9/11 happened. Like every American, I felt sad, angry, and vulnerable all at the same time. A young, attractive, and sharp Canadian-American Ashley Banfield rose from a moderately known reporter to a star in the media world. She went straight to Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 and speaking fluent Arabic languages provided very insightful, up-close and personal coverage of what was happening there. MSNBC's team had done exactly what a twenty-four hour cable news network needed for the American public and for me. They stayed with us through the months after 9/11 making me feel like I was informed about the status of how the United States and the rest of the world exhibited resiliency in the face of the horror we confronted. MSNBC was MY network. It wasn't my only source of news. Nobody should rely on a single source, but they were by far my favorite. Unfortunately, a rift grew between MSNBC and Banfield, and some in-house politics led to the ending of her journalistic career in news. Shortly thereafter Keith Olbermann started with MSNBC as well as Joe Scarborough. Olbermann offered a hip entertaining presentation of the news, and Scarborough provided commentary from a point of view that often shared.

Then came 2004. It was the year of a hotly contested election, which presented the contest between incumbent George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry. The polling showed the two neck and neck, but in the end Bush won reelection. It didn't happen quite as fast as the flip of a switch, but in very short order, many of the MSNBC pundits began taking a very sharp tone, almost combative with anyone who dared not share their ideas across a wide range of issues. Some of their rhetoric became downright spiteful, mean, and insulting. These weren't my old lovable anchors and commentators from MSNBC any longer. They weren't the people with whom I would commonly disagree on ideology but still trust to deliver reliable reporting and researched opinion. Something had changed, and as I viewer I really felt uninvited to watch. Olbermann got to the point where he would yell about the ineptitude and stupidity of people who disagreed with him. Matthews would spend entire shows just digging and digging at every mistake of the administration and try to sensationalize them to an extent that really didn't add much insight. Scarborough just didn't seem to have the same spark.

So after years of loyal viewing of MSNBC, I decided to change the channel. I went back to the name I recognized from my childhood. The name in news that brought coverage of the first Iraq war, the Gulf War, by way of Bernard Shaw reporting from underneath a table while Bagdad sustained bombing. CNN had changed quite a bit since my childhood, but it seemed to have its merits. I liked what they had done with Crossfire. They extended the show to an hour and changed to a live audience. Even better, they filmed it in DC where I lived. I could reserve a ticket to the show online for free, head down to George Washington University, and watch a show live. What a treat! Crossfire's ratings didn't really sustain the levels of their competition, so the network pulled the plug on it. Oh well. None of the other anchors were really captivating. Wold Blitzer seemed to compete for the worlds best softball tosser. He could never outmatch Larry King in that arena, but he clearly didn't have what it takes to put an interviewee on his or her heels. Anderson Cooper seemed at least un-offensively biased. Overall I didn't get much depth from CNN's programming. It really just seemed to function as an ineffective branch of the Democrat Party's PR relations. CNN had Glenn Beck on the air, but the network ostracized him as some kind of cancer for simply speaking his mind. On the comedy side of things, John Stewart of the Daily Show just recycled the theme of George W. Bush being and idiot over and over and over again, and his humor became too predictable and too partisan for me to find enjoyable.

So I changed the channel once again. This time, I landed on FNC. I held some reluctance because it had the reputation of a network that Conservatives and Libertarians preferred. Identifying myself as some hybrid of those two, I figured I would primarily get information with which I frequently agreed and didn't find much reason to challenge. Their lineup included Neil Cavuto reporting on business news, Brit Hume and Shephard Smith reporting the national news, Bill O'Reilly expressing views all across the political landscape but probably falling Center-Right on the spectrum, Sean Hannity and Allen Colmes bringing Conservative and Liberal points of view to commentary and debate, and a seemingly Center-Left Gretta Van Susteren. After making habit of watching, I really didn't see why the hatred and badmouthing of network existed. It represented all points of view and the reporting went straight down the line. It REALLY was fair and balanced. Thinking back to the other networks I had watched, I could then understand why so many viewed FNC as a Conservative sympathetic media. If you come from the perspective of a viewer of CNN, MSNBC, PBS, or any of the OTA (Over The Air) broadcast networks, you probably would have viewed FNC as Right, but the fallacy in that view lies in the fact that every other news network leans very far to the Left! Something else I noticed, the most vociferously outspoken critics of FNC never laid claim to ever watching it. It makes one ask what is it that they fear people learning so much that they want to shut such a network down? After a few months of watching, I concluded yep, I trust this network the most to deliver news and commentary. They didn't toss softballs to the Left while pitching fastballs to the Right. They pitched fastballs at everybody. And something existed on FNC that I had never seen represented anywhere else in news, particularly on Hannity and Colmes' show. While bitter rivals in the arena of political talk, they put on the show as the best of friends. They demonstrated a very important aspect of American Exceptionalism: that my neighbor may think very differently than I, but I will still love my neighbor on the basis of a common understanding that we put our humanity above government and politics.

In recent years, I think anyone has to fairly admit that certain aspects of FNC have drifted more towards Conservative and Libertarian content in their commentary. They've added Glenn Beck to the lineup, who provides very thoroughly researched commentary from a Conservative/Libertarian point of view. Alan Colmes decided to leave Hannity and Colmes, leaving Hannity to carry the show on his own, thus making it a Conservative commentary show. FNC also added Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld to their late night lineup, a comedy and political talk show hybrid, that brought a fast paced dynamic humor that transcends the monotony of the Daily Show. Bret Baier has taken over Special Report after Hume's semi-retirement, and has continued the unbiased reporting.

If not for FOX news, no major media outlet would deliver valuable perspectives that the American public deserves to have. I wish the people who routinely bash FNC would give it an honest chance. They might surprise themselves. If any news organization actually deserves the pointed rhetoric, the NBC affiliates without question do. General Electric owns those corporations as a parent company and stands to benefit financially from policy advocated by the Obama administration. Jefferey Immelt, CEO of GE, serves on the President's economic advisory council. This presents a real conflict of interest on their part with respect to reporting and making commentary upon the news. MSNBC has also purposefully edited footage in such a manner as to present complete falsehood as fact. But here we are, having to defend FNC.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Northrop Grumman & the DC 2010 Elections

This November brings Republican challengers running for the DC
council: Mark Morgan (Ward One), Tim Day (Ward Five), and David
Hedgepeth (Ward Three). Each stands to gain if they use Northrop
choosing VA for its corporate headquarters over DC (and MD) as an
illustration of policies not providing a business friendly
environment. For example, VA is a Right-To-Work state. DC is not.
VA has lower taxes. VA legislators don't frequently land the front
page in scandals. Northrop’s highly paid professionals will buy $6
Starbucks lattes across the river rather than stimulating the economy
of the District. Small business owners tell me DC has a very business
hostile climate. This costs the city new jobs and economic growth.
If GOP candidates hone in on this theme and residents open their minds
to people with an R next to their names, DC’s legislative landscape
could change for the better this November.