Is Fox News shifting to the Left?

[TampaYankee]

Is Fox News shifting to the Left?

By The Week's Editorial Staff | The Week

Conservatives are grumbling that Fox isn't speaking their language anymore. Did Fox chief Roger Ailes take his "course correction" too far?

Fox News chief Roger Ailes ordered a "course correction" at the network last year, parting ways with Glenn Beck and telling the rest of Fox's conservative talent to tamp down the rhetorical heat and extol the Tea Party movement less avidly. Conservatives aren't loving the change, says Keach Hagey in Politico, and some are tuning out. Fox's apparent shift toward the center was widely discussed and lamented at last weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). "I've gone from all Fox to no Fox, and replaced it with CNN, which I think right now is giving me a much fairer analysis of what's going on," right-wing Virginia talk radio gabber John Fredericks tells Politico. Is Fox News really veering leftward?

I guess "shift to the Left" is relative: What proof did Fredericks offer of this leftward lurch, asks Ed Kilgore in Washington Monthly. He's apparently upset — "seriously" — that Karl Rove (despite his supporting Romney) and Sean Hannity (allied to the Republican establishment) seem to be getting extra airtime. Other right-wing critics are griping over Beck's ouster. In other words, "any 'shift to the left' makes sense only as a relative term for any fixed object that is part of a Republican Party apparatus moving rapidly to the right."

"Fox's 'Shift to the Left'"

The shift is real, and politically savvy: The disgruntled conservatives are right about Fox's "subtle but real" move toward the center, says Paul Waldman in The American Prospect. But the "fevered conspiracy theories" they're employing to explain the shift are amusingly off base. Fox isn't caving to George Soros or going soft; it's moving "in the direction that Roger Ailes believes is the most advantageous for the GOP." In 2010, that was fueling the Tea Party. But to win a presidential race, you aim for the middle.

"Fox News, now part of the liberal media"

This is about business, and Fox isn't alone: Fox is, above all else, a very successful business, and good businesses adapt, says Evan McMurray in PoliticOlogy. Fox and its liberal counterpart, MSNBC, have both tapped "their respective extremes for all they're worth," and both are moving toward the center in an effort to grow their stagnating audience numbers. So Fox ditches Beck, and MSNBC loses Keith Olbermann, and "the effect overall can't help but be good" for each side — if, that is, the polarized audiences they helped create go along.

"Fox News changes anger Tea Party audience"

See the original article for many embedded links contained therein:

http://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-shifting-left-101300885.html

[MsGuy]

My guess is that old Rupert has been feeling a bit feeble lately and figures it's now or never for getting his estate taxes reduced. Romney is his best shot at a Republican president, the sine qua non to chopping the death tax, so it's time to shift Fox off the crazies whooping it up for the clown car guys and push more establishment conservative POVs.

Too crass, too cynical? LOL, it's Murdock we're talking about here, not his sock puppet, Ailes.

[Guest EXPAT]

I would love to see the internal memos at FoxNews. I'm sure they are quite interesting.

[TampaYankee]

This just highlights what to me has always been a ghastly observation since I encountered Fox News: that so-called professional journalists permit themselves be led around by the nose as to how to present the news and use talking points.

Fox News personnel fall into three categories IMO. 1. Clowns hired off the street to read scripts and follow directions. The morning trio is an example. Any one of their female blonds is another example. 2) Conservative activists and radio hacks like O'Reilly and Hannity. 3) News reporters hired away from other networks.

I find the first category to be an embarassment to Fox Management and Owners that demonstrates their desire to foist a charade and agenda on the 'news' profile for the channel.

The second category I have no real issues with as long as it is not presented as news. They do an adequate job of keeping that in the opinion category.

The third category is an embarassment on and casts shame, IMO, on individuals who I used to believe were principled, ethical, professional journalist-reporters. I'm talking about the likes of Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, Bill Hemmer, Bill Sammon and others who had established straight news reputations prior to joining Fox News Channel. Not only have they willingly practiced 'Talking-Points-News' but some have suborned 'agenda-driven' news, -- writing the scripts. Examples are: Hume and Salmon.

In fairness, some professionals, damn few, have been able to navigate the agenda driven environment without tarnishing their reputation, other than by association. Shep Smith is an example. Major Garret may be another but I was disappointed at his past attempts to separate the news operation from the opinion operation regarding an agenda driven environment. what is clear is that such individuals are the exception at FNC.