Media Criticism

One of the great success stories in television over the last decade has been Seth MacFarlane’s Family Guy. I was an enormous fan of the show during its initial run on Fox in 2000 and was sad to see it go away in favor of the crappy sitcoms that Fox seems to favor. Family Guy has helped spawn a movement within the diehard TV community to protest the early cancellation of favorite shows. The success of the DVD sets of the first few Family Guy seasons helped bring the show back from the depths of television’s garbage pit.

The reason I bring up these points is that Fox’s recent announcement that they will produce new episodes of Family Guy without the input of executive producer/creator MacFarlane is a slap in the face to fans as well as writers. The final new episode of the acerbic series ran this past Sunday and the Writers’ Guild strike has now shut down material for new episodes. MacFarlane has criticized this move by Fox and has a long history of criticizing network television for its various faults.

I don’t understand why Fox is even bothering to try and create new episodes of the show without MacFarlane. After all, it seems that Fox should have a stash of great reality shows like Syphilis Island, Ted Danson’s Journey across America, and What is That? that do not require any creativity or structure. If Rupert Murdoch is so concerned about keeping Family Guy on the air, they should band with other studio executives to resolve the writer’s strike. I would say that Fox is trying to insult the intelligence of the average TV viewer but they already do this by putting shows like Back to You on the air.

I think that this move by Fox signifies a long strike ahead for writers, studios and TV fans. Family Guy may seem like a disorganized mess that relies on pop culture references to function but you need writers and producers to weave these elements together. Fox’s cartoon lineup requires animators and other creative types to make some of their most popular shows function. A Fox-created version of Family Guy will sound like the “wrong sounding�? Muppets that were made a subject of a joke on the legitimate version of Family Guy.

When I think of Sally Field, I think of her roles as the mother in Mrs. Doubtfire and her memorable role as the titular character in Sybil. I have never seen the ABC show Brothers and Sisters nor did I know that Sally Field was even acting anymore. After seeing Sally Field’s train wreck of a speech on Sunday night, I hope that Brothers and Sisters turns into an improvisational show like Curb Your Enthusiasm.

I will admit that I will never watch Brothers and Sisters because it sounds like a bad show. Apparently, people in “the know�? felt otherwise and gave her an Emmy for lead actress in a drama series. Everyone who wanted to celebrate Sally Field within the industry may have regretted their decision after her speech. She rambled on about mothers and the role of mothers and celebrating mothers before shouting down the audience to get the most out of her time. There was a silence that ensued just as Sally Field was about to make her big finish.

Apparently, Sally got a bit salty with her language and used the words “God damn�? before finishing with a criticism of war. Fox pulled the plug quickly as soon as “God�? came out of her mouth which makes no sense since Fox News is the news network for God fearing folk. This is yet another reason why I hate award shows and after that speech I was wishing that New England wasn’t thrashing San Diego by so much so I could go back to sweet lady football.

As a side note, I enjoyed David Chase’s speech after The Sopranos won the final award of the night. Yes, David, it IS hilarious to say that gangsters may be running the United States. Who would have thought you would make that joke? That show should have pulled the plug much sooner than it did because its plot lines became strained under the repetition of gang life. I can’t believe I spent an entire post discussing the Emmys but trust me, this is the last time I will mention any awards shows in this blog unless someone actually does something significant.

In the blur of primary debates, interviews and other coverage associated with the 2008 presidential election, it can be difficult to gauge media bias. I watch most of the Sunday morning shows and try to watch as many hours of news programming during the week as possible. In my experience, I have noticed an effort by most outlets to feign a dispassionate interest in portraying all sides of the election. The Media Research Center seems to disagree.

Fox News reported about the Center’s latest study indicating that there were nearly twice as many stories on Democratic candidates as there were for Republican candidates in the first seven months of this year. The Fox News story was peppered with calls by the Center for an end to this double standard. I think it is interesting that the Media Research Center wants equal time for a group of white conservatives when there is more diversity in the Democratic presidential field.

A successful African American senator, a woman with significant experience in government, a Southern senator turned poverty warrior and a group that covers the full gamut of political perspectives form the Democratic field. If I was a news director and I had to choose time for one side or the other, I would go with the more interesting debate. It is true that both sides should get equal time in the general election. The problem with equality of air time during the primary season is that there are not always two primary races that are interesting to the public. Many people feel that the Democrats have a more compelling fight on their hands considering the extreme unpopularity of President Bush and the Republican Party in general.

My major issue with the Media Research Center’s findings is that private media sources have no compelling reason to give equal time. If Democrats get better ratings than Republicans for MSNBC or CNN, they will follow that lead. We should support public media outlets at the local, state and national level in our search for equity in media coverage for national politics. The Center is howling at the moon in trying to fight a “double standard�? when so many better sources of protest and information have fought the same battle.

I wasn’t sure that there was something that could further destroy the credibility of local news casts until I saw a promo for Fox’s “Anchorwoman.�? This show features a model named Lauren Jones who is plopped into a local news room in Tyler, TX. The idea is obviously a fish out of water tale that is meant to make fun of yokels in Tyler who are up in arms about someone like Jones landing a job. The locals should be upset because local news is not a place for experimentation as I have mentioned in a previous post.

People who read this may feel that I am overreacting. That may be true but it takes overreaction toward ridiculous situations like this to keep major companies from ruining the fabric of American media. Someone who has no journalistic experience and has not lived in a community cannot possibly impart the news in the context needed by news viewers. Even if she does a fluff segment for a few minutes each newscast, she is taking up space for actual news and distracting from legitimate journalistic efforts by professional reporters.

This is probably my last post in regards to local news unless I find some egregious attack on journalistic integrity. I am well aware that most local TV anchors are models, aspiring actors and people who want to advance to higher jobs. This point would make it seem like I am splitting hairs in arguing against “Anchorwoman.�? It is important to highlight every fault in American media and entertainment to discourage networks from pursuing similar activities in the future. Let’s put “Anchorwoman�? on the endangered TV show list along with that CBS show that had celebrities acting as cops.

I know the title is not very catchy but I think any good media criticism blog begins with an examination of local media. I live in the Milwaukee metropolitan area and have seen hundreds of inane local news stories that have riled me up. There is the “Dirty Dining�? feature on Milwaukee Channel 4 or “Ted’s Take�? on Fox 6 Milwaukee. Who watches these stories? More importantly, why is there three hours of news after 6 pm on any given night?

Minor local celebrity Ted Perry contributes to the ridiculousness of Milwaukee’s news scene. Perry is one of the local Fox station’s premier anchors and he also appears regularly on local radio. I was flipping through the major networks the other night and saw Ted expressing his opinion on the Iowa straw poll. This wasn’t Fox News Channel and Ted Perry is certainly not Sean Hannity. I just shook my head and turned off the television, deciding to read instead of listening to Perry toot his own horn further.

Local news is not the place for opinions. The editorial page in the daily paper or a separate show that the station produces to let journalists express their opinions a la Meet the Press is a better place. This is not an issue of preference but of ethics. How do I know that Perry and others don’t express their opinion when they are reporting the news? I can only read alternative papers or research stories of interest so much. I need to be able to trust news anchors to at least provide an unbiased list of facts. Instead, I get a wink, an opinion and a crass attempt at journalist integrity squeezed between 10 minutes of weather and 10 minutes of sports.

People all over the United States, from Seattle to Portland, Maine need to turn this garbage off. Anchors have the same interests as station managers: ratings. If no one watches, anchors won’t be able to spew their opinions on the air and won’t have the public’s support for their outside activities like geo-caching (Fox 6) or participation in Fourth of July parades (every channel). They will be stuck angrily blogging about the state of their career without the podium that they once brandished without regard for what they were doing.

The recent push by FOX’s Rupert Murdoch to purchase The Wall Street Journal has drawn great press attention. Columnists, bloggers and pundits have said that Murdoch’s ascension to the head of The Journal and Dow Jones will lead to the further watering down of the American press. To that, I say that we have reached maximum water level. American media can only go up at this point and I think Rupert Murdoch won’t have a great effect on The Wall Street Journal.

Murdoch has reached his level of prominence through shrewd business decisions. His Fox News Network may be conservative and play to the fears of Americans but the Fox TV Network is incredibly crass and liberal (i.e. The Simpsons, Family Guy). These polar opposites work on the airwaves because: a) there are thousands of television stations, b) their audiences overlap but do not completely align with one another and c) Murdoch only gets involved to the point where his brand name won’t get hurt.

The Columbia Journalism Review published a discussion about Murdoch’s push for The Journal on August 1st. Their analysis is well-reasoned because it tells everyone to calm down. Whether you agree or disagree with Murdoch’s personal politics, you have to see the forest for the trees. The Wall Street Journal will only improve with Murdoch at the helm because he will allow editors and newspaper people to do enough independent work to keep quality high.

In the last few years, the accessibility of blogging has grown. Along with it, so has the community of people who can now publish whatever they want whenever they want. Some are immensely popular and may even prove to be excellent resources. Others are just personal places to vent and rant. Either way, there’s little question that blogs have changed the way we receive information.

Blogs have changed the way we view the media in a few ways. One, journalism is more transparent. With all of the commentary floating around about certain events, it’s easier to spot bias and spin in the media. Two, I think people are inspired to think and write.

Before the blogging era, only a select group of people could publish information for all the world to read. Now, anybody with an e-mail address and the writing ability of a squirrel can start his/her own website. This has advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, it’s possible to access a wealth of information and analysis never before available. However, the disadvantages to a completely unfiltered blogosphere are twofold. One, the sheer number of blogs makes finding the right one difficult; you can find yourself wading through thousands of posts that say little more than “I HATE BUSH LOLZ” or “STUPID HIPPY LIBERALS OMFG”. This is the downside to letting literally anybody publish anything: the quality of content certainly decreases. Two, with no content filter or editing, there’s no guarantee that anything you find on a blog (including this one) is true.

However, I think the most important aspect of the interaction of blogs and the media stems from this disadvantage. It’s common knowledge that ABC News, CNN, and Fox News are better resources than, say, this blog. People, therefore, have to be more discerning about their sources of information, especially when they read news online. This improves our interaction with the media in two ways. One, the days of “it’s written down; therefore, it’s true” are over. It’s easy to question mainstream journalism now that there are so many alternative sources. Two, because news organizations are businesses, they necessarily respond to the needs of the consumer. As the consumer becomes more aware of the media and their faults, he/she will demand higher quality journalism. The news sources that deliver will stay alive; those that provide low-quality journalism will eventually go out of business.

Of course, the negative side to this argument is that the people don’t always demand the highest quality journalism. Celebrity gossip is always popular, and the blogging world only fuels that fire. Look how many blogs we have at 451 Press dedicated to celebrities and pop culture.

We’ll continue to write, and we hope that people will continue to read.

Blogs, Blogging, Journalism, Media

The controversy over the firing of eight prosecutors continues with Bush’s announcement today that two former members of his administration will not testify before Congress. According to ABC News, “President Bush ordered former counsel Harriet Miers to defy a congressional summons….” The article adds that “[c]ontempt citations against both women were a possibility.”

It is intriguing, to say the least, that the administration is going to such lengths to obstruct the investigation into these firings. It’s also interesting to investigate the way in which this news is presented.

It’s no secret that ABC News leans to the left. Left-wing crazies would argue that it’s perfectly fair and objective (if not a wee bit conservative), whereas right-wing crazies tend to lump ABC in with CNN and CBS as part of the vast left-wing conspiracy. Regardless, the ABC article definitely disparages the administration’s move. The easiest way to understand how it does so is to read this article on the same subject from Fox News. Not only is the ABC article significantly lengthier and more detailed, but it also focuses more on the possibility of Meirs facing contempt charges. Fox, on the other hand, opens with the quotation regarding Meirs’ protection from subpoena and gives only a few words to the possible contempt charges. This then indicates a more sympathetic view of Bush’s announcement today.

However, I believe both articles raise the same question: why is Bush trying to suppress this testimony? According to both articles, Sarah Taylor (former White House political director) defended the president and claimed that he had no role in the firings. It is unclear why Bush would suppress positive testimony about him; he has enough bad press these days as it is.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out; it will be even more interesting to see how the media handles this controversy.

Article Source: ABC News: Bush Orders Miers Not to Testify