Let's get some bias up on the table: I don't like Fox news, and I haven't for almost a decade-- well before I got into journalism myself. In that time my bias has been cemented by meeting the people who avidly consume their product and finding that those people and I have little ideology in common.
So when I heard that the admin had called them "an arm of the GOP" I laughed first-- and then I cringed.
I at least appreciate the transparency of the White House in their handling of the situation. The issue is not a new one, but their approach is. The boldness of their actions has made a place to debate the relationship between the government and the media and people have begun to ask questions that we should have been asking for years.
How much control should the administration have over who does and does not have access?
Should, and could, we define some ethical standards for the admin/media relationship?
How slanted can a news outlet become before it gets called on the carpet for it?
I've heard some people argue that this is a free speech issue, but I disagree. The admin is not attempting to say what Fox can or can't publish; they're saying they don't like what is being published. Access isn't a constitutional right. It falls more into ethics.
Despite my own personal bias against Fox news, I have an ethical issue with the White House trying to exclude them. Yes, I agree with the admin that they are biased, but to me it's an obvious trait of the outlet. Maybe I've just known that they're right-leaning for long enough that it seems obvious, but I picked up on it when I was 13 or 14 so I bet most people pick up on it too.
Plus, people who lean the same way will seek out news organizations that give them the kind of coverage they want. It's the exact reason why I don't pay attention to Fox. These are the people that Obama needs to be reaching out to right now, the people that are already weary or disapproving of him. It could be a wedge between him and many people, one I don't think he should keep pounding on.
That said, it would be interesting to see what would happen if a news organization were as vociferous in favor of Obama as Fox is against him. I doubt they would have made it this long without someone making a fuss--as they should.
Ideally, I feel that this situation should never have come up. The media does need to remain skeptical, especially with regards to the government. It is the function of the media to be the watchdog, the whistle blower, the guardian of democracy. But it absolutely must be accurate, fair, and consistent.
Is Fox fair? It depends on how you look at it. They believe that no other news outlet is critical enough of the current admin, so they appear to be trying to make up for what they claim is an imbalance in the field. Their news chief described it as "The Alamo."
I take issue with that. I believe that a news organization is responsible unto itself to be fair, and to call out other networks when they are not-- not to take is as a duty to make up for everyone else. We, the public, are at fault for not demanding unbiased journalism. For supporting it, in fact. Perhaps this controversy will lead to a closer examination of the way Fox does business, though I doubt it will change it.
Whatever the outcome, I'm curious to see where this leads; not only during this administration but in future ones as well. Will the public be more aware of media bias? Will this sensitize the media and the public to the way that admins quietly blacklist news outlets? Will it be possible for them to do so in the future, even subtly, without getting attention and criticism for it? I think this will largely depend on the outcome of this situation.
We may be setting a precedent here, so we need to be sure it's one we want to continue to follow.
