The War Between the White House and Fox

A recent New York Times article described a meeting between White House adviser David Axelrod and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. Apparently, the Obama administration decided to shun Fox News because they felt “that Fox News had blurred the line between news and anti-Obama advocacy.” The network’s answer was “that Fox’s reporters were fair, if tough, and should be considered separate from the Fox commentators.”

As a student of journalism and (hopefully) soon a TV reporter and a communications intern at the State House Majority office in Denver, Colorado, this is particularly interesting because I know both “sides” in this “war.” Should an administration shut out a whole television news network and basically deny them coverage because they do not like the way or tone of that network? I believe it shouldn’t. Still, it happens. As an international student from Germany, it is surprising to hear it is happening in the country that is so very proud of the free press rights written down in the first amendment of its constitution. I am also surprised to hear this comes from the administration of a Barack Obama, not a George W. Bush.

It seems to me that most people have a preference in media outlets, and that most people understand that some of the big cable networks (e.g. Fox News and CNBC) biased are to a certain extent. Naturally, administrations will always favor the network offering a little more support of their policies. After all, they are trying to get their message across to the voters. While this extent of favoritism is understandable, “White House comments describing Fox as ‘not a news network’” go too far. But where do we draw the line? Is calling on the reporter with the unpleasant questions last in a press conference already going too far or does it start with not calling on that reporter at all?

I know from personal experience how different it can be to work for different media outlets. As an intern for RTL this summer, I had to call politicians, their spokespeople or staff multiple times to arrange interviews. RTL is Europe’s biggest private network, but does not enjoy the best reputation when it comes to news. Some people might even say they tend to sensationalize. Sound familiar? After my internship with RTL, I interned at Radio Bremen, a local affiliate of the ARD, Germany’s biggest public TV network, which enjoys an excellent reputation when it comes to news. It was much easier to arrange interviews for the ARD, be it with politicians or “regular people.” People at the other end of the line also seemed much friendlier as soon as they heard “Radio Bremen TV” instead of “RTL.”

So, network favoritism exists in democratic countries on the other side of the Atlantic, too. But it seems to be a trait you would rather like to associate with a dictatorship than a democracy. While Fox News seems to be biased to me and as a journalism student I agree that some of its content is pushing the boundaries of quality journalism, it is still an important part of the diverse media that make a democracy work. From the view of the communications intern in government, I understand the frustration the White House must feel sometimes, but the Obama administration has gone too far. You simply cannot shut out one specific media outlet completely and at the same time hold yourself to a higher standard and want to a “beacon of light” for democracy in the world, to use the President’s own words.

Blogging about Blogs

According to the subhead, the blog “Poorer than You” deals with “Money issues for college students and 20-somethings, without being boring,” therefore catering to a pretty well defined audience.

The sole author is Stephanie, a “22-year-old college graduate, living in Rochester, New York.” Like many college graduates, the author is in debt; she owes almost 40,000 dollars in student loans. And, like many other college graduates and 20-somethings, she’s trying to find ways to get rid of that debt. Stephanie aims to be debt free by 2011.

To achieve that goal, she reads and reviews financial literature, like personal finance books. Besides book reviews, her blog contains accounts of her accomplishments and failures in her crusade against her personal debt. Additionally, guest entries from other blogs and links to giveaways can be found.

This “blend of personal stories and articles” is delivered in a very laid back tone, which sometimes gets personal (e.g. she calls an author a “douche bag”). I believe that using the lingo of the target audience definitely makes it easier for those readers to follow financial stories, which can be complex at times.

Also, the author describes episodes of her personal life, like her moving across the country. These stories are witty, easy to read and sometimes funny. The blogger aims to educate the reader about how to safe money and get out of debt, or avoiding getting into debt. Unlike a journalist, she includes a lot of personal stuff, which is definitely subjective.

Overall, the blog is entertaining and seems to offer some helpful advice, but I stumbled upon a link that made me wonder. One of Stephanie’s book reviews ended with recommendations who should buy the book and the sentence “Buy ‘A Million Bucks by 30’ from Amazon.com today!” The sentence included a link to amazon.com and it did not look like an automated advertisement you often see on the web, but just like with an integrated link.

This made me wonder whether or not they were sponsored. Fair enough, she recommends the book to certain readers who would like to become millionaires by the time they’re thirty. But does she have to include a link to an online bookstore. And why do I need to buy the book on Amazon.com today(!)?

While some of the seemed really helpful, or at least interesting, I am a little concerned about the link to Amazon.com. Things like that just make me cringe.

Editing Video and Ethics

Editing video is a big part of a broadcast journalist’s daily duties. It’s in the edit room where the raw video footage is transformed into a story told in pictures. A lot more than editing video can be done with the help of modern digital editing software. For example, music can set the mood for a story and visual effects can make it more exciting for the viewer. With this toolset at their hands, journalists are sometimes able to produce two entirely different stories out of the same raw footage. With this power comes great responsibility.

One of the more common things in editing is choosing and editing soundbites. When editing a soundbite, the reporter chooses the most important or compelling statements of the subjects he interviewed to incorporate them into his story. Because of airtime constraints and to make it easier for the viewer to follow the story, little pauses and “ums and uhs” are also edited out. When soundbites are edited, the reputation of the interviewed person is in the reporter’s hands. It is one of the core values of broadcast journalists not to misrepresent these people.

I interned at two local television stations in my home town last summer, and it in my experience things happen in digital editing every day that are violating that core value and are pushing the boundaries of journalistic ethics. A good example is a news package I produced for one of these stations.

It was a soft story about a ladybug invasion; millions of them had spread into a riverbed and onto the beach. The station I interned at is an affiliate of a big national network and my interviews and the photographer’s video were incorporated into a package on the national news. The photographer and I had shot the footage exclusively for the national news, but my producer wanted a package for our local newscast out of it.

To make the package work, we needed a statement by an expert on ladybugs or at least insects in general. Since the national news had already interviewed an expert, it was more convenient (and also a lot cheaper) to use their material than to go out and shoot our own interview. In theory, this could have worked without any problems and is common practice at that network.

Unfortunately, the expert on the national news was talking about a different geographic location. To make the story work and meet deadline, we edited out two words. Instead of a ladybug invasion at “our Baltic Sea coast,” we now had a ladybug invasion at “our sea coast.” According to the editor I worked with, this was also common practice at the station.

I guess I could say that it wasn’t an important story. It didn’t hurt any one. The ladybugs were all over the coast, not just at the Baltic Sea. But, the expert was still misrepresented and I had a gut feeling that this was simply wrong. With the five o’clock deadline approaching and the producer telling me just to go ahead, I didn’t think twice about it. After all, I was only an intern and this was the lead story.

Friends who interned or work at other stations have had similar experiences. So while this might not be common practice in broadcast journalism everywhere, it seems to be happening a lot. It’s one the little tricks you use to make a story work when time is running out.

Did it make me feel uncomfortable? Yes. Would I do it again if a producer a news director told me to? Probably yes. It’s up to every journalist to decide whether or not they want to accept such methods, but from my experience that's a tough decision to make, especially at the beginning of your career.