If what former Fox News producer Charlie Reina says is true, Roger Ailes and his pals not only aggressively juice the political slant, they've created a pretty awful place to work if you are more journalist than political operative. In a letter to Romenesko Reina cites daily talking points memos about how to spin the news, and a top-down, agenda-driven management style.
My advice to the pundits: If you really want to know about bias at Fox, talk to the grunts who work there - the desk assistants, tape editors, writers, researchers and assorted producers who have to deal with it every day. Ask enough of them what goes on, promise them anonymity, and you'll get the real story.The fact is, daily life at FNC is all about management politics. I say this having served six years there - as producer of the media criticism show, News Watch, as a writer/producer of specials and (for the last year of my stay) as a newsroom copy editor. Not once in the 20+ years I had worked in broadcast journalism prior to Fox - including lengthy stays at The Associated Press, CBS Radio and ABC/Good Morning America - did I feel any pressure to toe a management line. But at Fox, if my boss wasn't warning me to "be careful" how I handled the writing of a special about Ronald Reagan ("You know how Roger [Fox News Chairman Ailes] feels about him."), he was telling me how the environmental special I was to produce should lean ("You can give both sides, but make sure the pro-environmentalists don't get the last word.")
[snipped]
The roots of FNC's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible.
Lovely.
So what? Is this really any worse than the numerous newsrooms around the country that have 'style rules' forcing reporters to call illegal aliens "undocumented immigrants" (or some other euphemism), or that routinely expunge any description of an at-large crime suspect that mentions skin color or ethnicity, because always including these might lead one to believe that non-whites commit a disproportionate share of serious, violent crime (which they do), and so upset ethnic advocates who push these sorts of political agendas ("diversity") that shape what we all read every day?
Anyway, Fox is what it is. If you don't like it, don't watch it; I rarely do. It's not like people don't have a choice. In fact, given the prevalence of the newspaper practices I describe, people have a lot more choice in electronic media.
Posted by: EH at October 31, 2003 06:00 AM

If FOX is the only place he's felt a certain pressure, he's either been very lucky or he's lying. I've been around the alphabet, and I certainly felt "expectations" on a number of levels. Booking a story about the Rosenbergs for CBS News, I was reminded that they were innocent, no matter what the USSR said. PBS (right here in town) had a pre-approved list of acceptable experts on various historical subjects.
Posted by: Kate at October 29, 2003 04:56 PMThat he had no pressure at GMA--it's a morning show!