What do you think?
Rate this book
The Fox Effect: How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine
Here is comprehensive overview of the tumultuous career of former Fox News president Roger Ailes and a must-read for anyone looking to understand his legacy and impact on news media.
Based on the meticulous research of the news watchdog organization Media Matters for America, David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt show how Fox News, under its president Roger Ailes, changed from a right-leaning news network into a partisan advocate for the Republican Party.
The Fox Effect follows the career of Ailes from his early work as a television producer and media consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush. Consequently, when he was hired in 1996 as the president of Rupert Murdoch’s flagship conservative cable news network, Ailes had little journalism experience, but brought to the job the mindset of a political operative. As Brock and Rabin-Havt demonstrate through numerous examples, Ailes used his extraordinary power and influence to spread a partisan political agenda that is at odds with long-established, widely held standards of fairness and objectivity in news reporting.
Featuring transcripts of leaked audio and memos from Fox News reporters and executives, The Fox Effect is a damning indictment of how the network’s news coverage and commentators have biased reporting, drummed up marginal stories, and even consciously manipulated established facts in their efforts to attack the Obama administration.
Based on the meticulous research of the news watchdog organization Media Matters for America, David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt show how Fox News, under its president Roger Ailes, changed from a right-leaning news network into a partisan advocate for the Republican Party.
The Fox Effect follows the career of Ailes from his early work as a television producer and media consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush. Consequently, when he was hired in 1996 as the president of Rupert Murdoch’s flagship conservative cable news network, Ailes had little journalism experience, but brought to the job the mindset of a political operative. As Brock and Rabin-Havt demonstrate through numerous examples, Ailes used his extraordinary power and influence to spread a partisan political agenda that is at odds with long-established, widely held standards of fairness and objectivity in news reporting.
Featuring transcripts of leaked audio and memos from Fox News reporters and executives, The Fox Effect is a damning indictment of how the network’s news coverage and commentators have biased reporting, drummed up marginal stories, and even consciously manipulated established facts in their efforts to attack the Obama administration.
329 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2012
44 people are currently reading
692 people want to read
About the author
David Brock
123 books32 followersDavid^Brock.
There is more than one author by this name in the database.
David Brock is a journalist currently living in Washington, DC. He started out in professional journalism with a piece in "The Wall Street Journal", that caught the attention of John Podhoretz, who was assigned with starting a magazine for the conservative daily newspaper, "The Washington Times".
He worked as a news reporter for a while at "Insight" (the Washington Times' magazine) until eventually moving up to work for the paper, itself. His prominence in the conservative movement as a journalist got him a job at the American Spectator. During his time at the Spectator, Brock became very well known for filing "hatchet jobs" against then-President Bill Clinton (William Jefferson Clinton) and the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
He wrote the hugely popular book, "The Real Anita Hill", which attempted to paint Anita Hill (who accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment while he was being confirmed to the Court) as being a liar who could not be trusted (Brock labeled her "a bit nutty and a bit slutty").
He eventually "broke" with the conservatives and went on to try to make amends for his character assassination and fabrication of the truth while he was in the movement.
He detailed these fabrications and denounced much of his own earlier work in his 2002 book, "Blinded By The Right".
He is now the CEO and founder of "Media Matters for America", a progressive media watchdog group thats mission is to find and correct conservative misinformation in the mainstream press.
- IMDb Mini Biography By: Regis
There is more than one author by this name in the database.
David Brock is a journalist currently living in Washington, DC. He started out in professional journalism with a piece in "The Wall Street Journal", that caught the attention of John Podhoretz, who was assigned with starting a magazine for the conservative daily newspaper, "The Washington Times".
He worked as a news reporter for a while at "Insight" (the Washington Times' magazine) until eventually moving up to work for the paper, itself. His prominence in the conservative movement as a journalist got him a job at the American Spectator. During his time at the Spectator, Brock became very well known for filing "hatchet jobs" against then-President Bill Clinton (William Jefferson Clinton) and the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
He wrote the hugely popular book, "The Real Anita Hill", which attempted to paint Anita Hill (who accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment while he was being confirmed to the Court) as being a liar who could not be trusted (Brock labeled her "a bit nutty and a bit slutty").
He eventually "broke" with the conservatives and went on to try to make amends for his character assassination and fabrication of the truth while he was in the movement.
He detailed these fabrications and denounced much of his own earlier work in his 2002 book, "Blinded By The Right".
He is now the CEO and founder of "Media Matters for America", a progressive media watchdog group thats mission is to find and correct conservative misinformation in the mainstream press.
- IMDb Mini Biography By: Regis
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews
June 20, 2015
I just finished reading this book and only one word comes out to my mind: comprehensive!
Written by David Brock and mediamatters,this book is packed with interesting political information!A fact check version of Zeitgeist if you will,Brock lays out lies of Fox News and even more,blunt shameless manipulation,distortion of facts and selective 'news' backed up by numerous notes and references.
This book is packed with evidence based research yet not one page in it is boring!
This book gives a very brief chapter on Roger Ailes' past,his racist inclinations and Fox News beginnings,we learn how Fox overtook CNN as the number1 network in the next chapter,2 more chapters are devoted to Fox News sycophancy for the Bush administration!
But the book really becomes much more interesting after page 70 as Obama era begins,the book chronicles obstructions by Fox news during his candidacy and esp once he got elected!
The book covers Obamacare debate in very depth.How Fox News,led by Ailes hampered the Obama agenda of giving affordable health care to all and how the death of sen.Kennedy due to brain cancer brought Fox news into attack mode resulting in the loss of super majority for the Democrats in special senate election.
The book covers the tea party phenomenon in depth,it covers the time period between 2009-2011 esp the midterms and those parts are very entertaining for any political junkie!
The book however gets to its best when it covers Glenn Beck,who has unabashedly worked to divide Americans and dupe GOP racist paranoid base!It has interesting stories on how Beck's repeated use of Nazis in describing Obama made many Jews angry and Rabbis complained to Ailles who didn't even give a damn about Beck's blatant Anti-Semitic retorts!
Definitely a must read for political junkies!
5 stars!
Written by David Brock and mediamatters,this book is packed with interesting political information!A fact check version of Zeitgeist if you will,Brock lays out lies of Fox News and even more,blunt shameless manipulation,distortion of facts and selective 'news' backed up by numerous notes and references.
This book is packed with evidence based research yet not one page in it is boring!
This book gives a very brief chapter on Roger Ailes' past,his racist inclinations and Fox News beginnings,we learn how Fox overtook CNN as the number1 network in the next chapter,2 more chapters are devoted to Fox News sycophancy for the Bush administration!
But the book really becomes much more interesting after page 70 as Obama era begins,the book chronicles obstructions by Fox news during his candidacy and esp once he got elected!
The book covers Obamacare debate in very depth.How Fox News,led by Ailes hampered the Obama agenda of giving affordable health care to all and how the death of sen.Kennedy due to brain cancer brought Fox news into attack mode resulting in the loss of super majority for the Democrats in special senate election.
The book covers the tea party phenomenon in depth,it covers the time period between 2009-2011 esp the midterms and those parts are very entertaining for any political junkie!
The book however gets to its best when it covers Glenn Beck,who has unabashedly worked to divide Americans and dupe GOP racist paranoid base!It has interesting stories on how Beck's repeated use of Nazis in describing Obama made many Jews angry and Rabbis complained to Ailles who didn't even give a damn about Beck's blatant Anti-Semitic retorts!
Definitely a must read for political junkies!
5 stars!
May 28, 2012
This is one of those books that preaches to my personal choir. The fact that Fox News is far from "Fair and Balanced" should not surprise any intelligent person. A few years ago, Robert Greenwald's excellent documentary Outfoxed covered much of this material. Yet this book by the people at Media Matters goes a step further. They show how by 2009, Fox News developed from a "news" provider with biased reporting and questionable standards to a unabashed supporter and organizer for the Republican Party and other conservative groups. It is a good account of how Fox News developed. However, I hoped for a bit more quality in its writing. Nonetheless I still recommend it for its research and message.
Three and a half stars.
Support real news not Faux News
Three and a half stars.
Support real news not Faux News
February 29, 2012
I have not read this book yet. But neither has the person who slapped a one-star review upon it. So let's just go ahead and re-set the ratings. It's got a knee-jerk one-star rating and a knee-jerk five star rating. Now, what does it actually deserve?
March 7, 2012
This book is most likely to inspire a number of "hated it" as well as a number of "loved it" responses, since it discusses one of our most sensitive topics, e.g., partisan politics. The Country seems to be as polarized as it's ever been, and ideologues from the left and the right are sure to weigh in on this book.
The left and the right seem to battle like prosecutor and defense counsel in the criminal trials. And like trial lawyers who only present one side of an argument, and will offer theories which support their side as "facts", political party loyalists or spokepersons seem to be doing the same. And that's the basic premise of this book.
David Brock points out how Fox has become the broadcast voice of the Conservative Movement in this country. It's hard to argue against that. Most of the recent and current GOP candidates for President, with the notable exception of Mitt Romney, have been commentators on the Fox network. It'll be a long time before a prominent Democrat or Liberal will host a show on Fox.
Brock doesn't argue that people of any political persuasion shouldn't have the right to speak and be heard, but does make the case that a constant theme from only one perspective, and the selective use of facts, is better defined as propaganda than as news. As in civil or criminal trials, prosecuting attorneys are expected to pursue their case with vigor, but their duty is to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction. Instead, they are expected to use every legitimate means to produce a just outcome. And Brock, a converted conservative, feels that these same principles should apply to television networks as well. He provides examples where Fox hosts have gone beyond "legitimate means", and provide one sided points designed not to inform, but to reinforce their views. He notes that the "fair and balanced" slogan Fox executives use in describing their network is valid if meant to mean that Fox provides a voice which is designed to balance the more liberal voices of the mainstream media. In that regard, viewers of the Fox Network, as the more conservative members of society, will agree with the Fox executives that they bring balance to political discussions. And those more left or centered will disagree with that viewpoint, and find Brock's book to be a voice of reason.
Brock also points out how the popularity of the Fox Network, and it's constant theme supporting conservative views, has prevented politicians from agreeing to compromises, for fear of being criticized by the Network voices. Ultimately, the inability to compromise, or to hear the other's views and be able to find common ground leads to roadblocks and inaction. And in politics, that contributes to the extremely unfavorable view of Congress over these past few years. And that may well also account for the growing number of voters, especially those in the 18 to 34 year-old group, who consider themselves to be neither Democrat nor Republican.
The left and the right seem to battle like prosecutor and defense counsel in the criminal trials. And like trial lawyers who only present one side of an argument, and will offer theories which support their side as "facts", political party loyalists or spokepersons seem to be doing the same. And that's the basic premise of this book.
David Brock points out how Fox has become the broadcast voice of the Conservative Movement in this country. It's hard to argue against that. Most of the recent and current GOP candidates for President, with the notable exception of Mitt Romney, have been commentators on the Fox network. It'll be a long time before a prominent Democrat or Liberal will host a show on Fox.
Brock doesn't argue that people of any political persuasion shouldn't have the right to speak and be heard, but does make the case that a constant theme from only one perspective, and the selective use of facts, is better defined as propaganda than as news. As in civil or criminal trials, prosecuting attorneys are expected to pursue their case with vigor, but their duty is to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction. Instead, they are expected to use every legitimate means to produce a just outcome. And Brock, a converted conservative, feels that these same principles should apply to television networks as well. He provides examples where Fox hosts have gone beyond "legitimate means", and provide one sided points designed not to inform, but to reinforce their views. He notes that the "fair and balanced" slogan Fox executives use in describing their network is valid if meant to mean that Fox provides a voice which is designed to balance the more liberal voices of the mainstream media. In that regard, viewers of the Fox Network, as the more conservative members of society, will agree with the Fox executives that they bring balance to political discussions. And those more left or centered will disagree with that viewpoint, and find Brock's book to be a voice of reason.
Brock also points out how the popularity of the Fox Network, and it's constant theme supporting conservative views, has prevented politicians from agreeing to compromises, for fear of being criticized by the Network voices. Ultimately, the inability to compromise, or to hear the other's views and be able to find common ground leads to roadblocks and inaction. And in politics, that contributes to the extremely unfavorable view of Congress over these past few years. And that may well also account for the growing number of voters, especially those in the 18 to 34 year-old group, who consider themselves to be neither Democrat nor Republican.
July 8, 2016
I have to disclose that I have been crying for Fox News, or as I often refer to them, "MockNews", to drop the "Fair and Balanced" tag for a long time or at least do what Vince McMahon did and embrace the lie as entertainment, so I read this book with an admitted bias. I'm glad there is Media Matters to watch these guys and call their BS. Oh, I do think they (Media Matters) can be a bit zealous at times...and nitpicking, but one has to admire the people who crawl into the cesspool that is Fox News every day and hopefully retain a bit of optimism.
That said, Brock puts together a cogent and well cited indictment of Roger Ailes and his political machine masquerading as a "news" organization. Fans of Fox won't see the unedited clips, or the critical analyses in the links for what they are, but that's to be expected of the sheeple. Media Matters does catch the other outlets, but Fox is like the proverbial fish in a barrel. The book presents the observations clearly, and with little inflammatory editorializing. At least, I saw little. But then, I probably wouldn't. Anti-sheeple.
The people who need to read this book won't. And the people who really need to read it wouldn't understand. More's the pity. Be afraid. Be very afraid of Ailes and crew.
That said, Brock puts together a cogent and well cited indictment of Roger Ailes and his political machine masquerading as a "news" organization. Fans of Fox won't see the unedited clips, or the critical analyses in the links for what they are, but that's to be expected of the sheeple. Media Matters does catch the other outlets, but Fox is like the proverbial fish in a barrel. The book presents the observations clearly, and with little inflammatory editorializing. At least, I saw little. But then, I probably wouldn't. Anti-sheeple.
The people who need to read this book won't. And the people who really need to read it wouldn't understand. More's the pity. Be afraid. Be very afraid of Ailes and crew.
March 10, 2012
This book is my first review on GoodReads and I hope I’m going about this properly.
The Fox Effect: How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine was a read that was unsettling and saddening for me. To see, and in a way, relive…the evolution of propaganda news and its cycles chronicled (and sourced) the way this book does was close to overwhelming. It made me question the overall affect of what this type of discourse is doing to America’s society and democracy as a whole. When the systematic injection of lies and distortion (with little effort of serious rebuttal) is introduced on a 24/7 news cycle to an electoral audience of millions, and then made legitimate by repetition…the realization of the damage this causes….it just makes my head spin.Good book, a really, really good book…it inspired me to actually write a review (and maybe something even longer in the near future:).
The Fox Effect: How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine was a read that was unsettling and saddening for me. To see, and in a way, relive…the evolution of propaganda news and its cycles chronicled (and sourced) the way this book does was close to overwhelming. It made me question the overall affect of what this type of discourse is doing to America’s society and democracy as a whole. When the systematic injection of lies and distortion (with little effort of serious rebuttal) is introduced on a 24/7 news cycle to an electoral audience of millions, and then made legitimate by repetition…the realization of the damage this causes….it just makes my head spin.Good book, a really, really good book…it inspired me to actually write a review (and maybe something even longer in the near future:).
April 14, 2020
This book was written in 2012 so the stories and people were a little outdated but the information was still relevant, and Fox "News" is even worse today than it was then. Fox News isn't news, it's a mouthpiece for the Republican party that uses hateful and misleading propaganda to further their agenda. Fox gives Republicans a unique platform for their agenda and most viewers are none the wiser to realize how badly they are misinformed. There is no equivalent for the Democratic party. This book goes through the history of Fox News and how they got to be so powerful. I'd strongly encourage people to read this book so that we can have more educated and informed voters. The power this network has is mind blowing and if you are educated and informed, it will really make you angry to realize how bad it is.
February 21, 2018
Though Fox viewers are not likely to read this...they are in desperate need of doing so...they are so poorly misinformed of their "fair and balanced" station. And that's not to say all media doesn't have severe limitations...but Fox just goes beyond the pale...
July 16, 2014
This book should be required reading for anyone who depends on Fox as their news source. It points out, using many specific examples, why Fox New is less a news organization than a propaganda machine.
Read
July 28, 2019Spoilers: Turns out Fox is bad.
It was very interesting hearing how Fox was formed from the Nixon campaign, and the relationships involved. It's interesting too how it came to dominate Republican politics, with "contributors" given so much airtime and access that it's come to monopolize discourse on the right. I'm sure it doesn't surprise anyone that Fox is full of rampant propaganda and outright lies, but it's interesting to see some of the mechanics of that, with campaigns masterminded by each of the hosts, jockeying for position with each other.
I'd be really interested to see follow-ups talking about the even more extreme imitators - they talk a little about Breitbart's early days, and Trump, but things have moved on a lot since 2012.
It was very interesting hearing how Fox was formed from the Nixon campaign, and the relationships involved. It's interesting too how it came to dominate Republican politics, with "contributors" given so much airtime and access that it's come to monopolize discourse on the right. I'm sure it doesn't surprise anyone that Fox is full of rampant propaganda and outright lies, but it's interesting to see some of the mechanics of that, with campaigns masterminded by each of the hosts, jockeying for position with each other.
I'd be really interested to see follow-ups talking about the even more extreme imitators - they talk a little about Breitbart's early days, and Trump, but things have moved on a lot since 2012.
October 9, 2024
A really informative look at how Fox News has shaped the way that we talk about facts and news.
January 25, 2024
A BOOK BY ‘MEDIA MATTERS’ STRONGLY CRITIQUING THE FOX NEWS NETWORK
The authors of this 2012 book wrote in the Introduction, “Media Matters, our organization, produces… research … focused on correcting conservative misinformation in the media… in early 2009, we noticed a marked increase in politically motivated misinformation coming from Fox News… their influence and reach within the media and with the public at large as the most-watched cable news network made it even more important to counteract their distortions of the truth… We live in a cynical time, when words like ‘fair’ and ‘balanced’ are used as slogans to sell content that is anything but. When the words of lobbyists and the politicians they support are given equal weight with the consensus of scienfific experts … Reporters often ask why they should trust Media Matters any more than Fox… Media Matters makes no claim of being neutral; we proudly wear our progressive ideology on our sleeve… But our research and reporting stick to the facts and are painstakingly documented. Fox, on the other hand, claims to be a ‘fair and balanced’ news network while brazenly broadcasting demonstrable lies and distortions, always with a conservative spin.” (Pg. 11-12)
They assert, “And the network’s partisan misinformation has not been limited to the dry facts of reporting on political or legislative issues---some of the consequences of its poorly vetted and politicially motivated investigations have unjustly and seriously damaged lives and careers… instead of seeking to get to the bottom of these stories, Fox based its work on distortions, smears, and heavily edited video, often used out of context. These ‘news’ stories had little or no journalistic value and were aired simply to harm progressives… [Fox] is something unprecedented… a news business that is willing to put politics above all else.” (Pg. 15-16)
They report, “[Roger] Ailes’ recipe for success with the Fox News Channel, for the first decade of its existence, was to take conservative talk radio and move it onto cable television… it rose to prominence during the George W. Bush administration… Ailes’s broadcast philosophy followed his political philosophy … Running Fox News has made Ailes an extremely rich man.” (Pg. 36-37) They add, “After more than a decade of Ailes’ leadership… He was in charge of the largest political megaphone on the right, speaking directly with more conservatives every day than any arm of the Republican Party… He has loyal lieutenants in his prime-time hosts Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity… And, on the day before Barack Obama became commander in chief, Ailes added a new weapon to his arsenal: Glenn Beck.” (Pg. 41)
They explain, “Fox’s strategy revolved around the theory that there was an audience of news consumers being underserved in the marketplace… In their minds, Fox was biased---toward America… The network’s ideological clarity enabled it to innovate in ways that would leave the competition in the dust. In the wake of September 11, Fox News jumped on two opportunities to distinguish itself… [The first was the ‘ticker’]… Fox News unveiled its ticker and CNN quickly followed suit… Fox’s second innovation … was the simple addition of an American flag to the Fox News logo… By linking the American flag to the network, Fox declared, ‘We are America, and we’re taking sides.’” (Pg. 56-57)
After the 2008 election, “Just as George W. Bush disappeared from Fox News’s election-night coverage, the legacy of his presidency seemed to vanish from the network the next day. It was as if the eight-year period that had seen two major wars, a massive financial crisis… had never happened… Before Barack Obama had been president-elect for a single week, Fox hosts were already blaming him for the state of the economy.” (Pg. 79) Later, they add, “In 2009… No longer would it simply be infotainment for the conservative base. Fox could now become a political vehicle designed to advance an ideological agenda.” (Pg. 91)
They observe, “The Tea Parties---and the coverage they received---created a sense that the president was not invincible and that his agenda could be stopped. Perhaps most important, this conservative uprising made President Obama’s grassroots operation, Organizing for America, seem impotent… With the Tea Party movement looming large, Democrats in swing districts watched the Tea Parties fearfully.” (Pg. 114)
When ‘Obamacare’ was being debated, commentators like Sean Hannity claimed that it “will end private insurance.” But the authors add, “Quite the opposite. The Obama plan relied on the private market as the primary provider of insurance, much to the consternation of many in the progressive movement… While… these distortions made an impact, none was more damaging than the idea that health care reform would create ‘death panels’ with the power to decide who receives treatment and who is left to die. The ‘death panel’ lie became impossible to kill and drove the national conversation about health care reform for months.” (Pg. 117) “Later, Dick Morris [said]… this bill … gives the federal government the power to tell people, ‘No, you can’t have this bypass surgery. You have to die.’ Morris’s claim was absurd in its face.” (Pg. 135)
They recount, “What ultimately doomed [Van] Jones’s tenure at the White House was the charge that he signed a petition distributed by conspiracy theorists claiming that our government was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks… Jones would state that … He had never accused the Bush administration of planning the attacks. At worst, Jones carelessly added his name to a petition from a dubious source… Jones resigned on September 5… After the Van Jones episode, Glenn Beck was no longer just a host; he had taken a scalp.” (Pg. 150-151)
They report, “In Fox News’s reporting … ACORN was targeted … for voter registration irregularities… voter registration in the United States is a difficult business, with complicated rules that often vary from location to location. ACORN would collect hundreds of thousands of registrations, some of which contained fraudulent or funny names [e.g., ‘Mickey Mouse’]… While this proved embarrassing for ACORN… there was no chance that anyone using these fake names would end up casting illegal votes.” (Pg. 159)
They state, “The War on Christmas was a particularly egregious example of Fox’s creating a story where none existed. Each year, as the holiday season began, the network would search for examples of individuals, corporations, or municipalities removing Christmas from the public square. The fight was personal to Roger Ailes, who had engaged in his own pro-Christmas activism.” (Pg. 164)
They outline, “The ACORN saga also provided a perfect example of how Fox helps conservatives stir up national controversies: STEP 1: Conservative activists introduce the lie… STEP 2: Fox News devotes massive coverage to the story… STEP 3: Fox attacks other outlets for ignoring the controversy… STEP 4: Mainstream outlets begin reporting on the story… STEP 5: Media critics, pundits praise Fox News’s coverage… STEP 6: The story falls apart after the damage has been done.” (Pg. 168-170)
They note, “Climate change is one of the issues that exposed the divisions between Rupert Murdoch and Fox News, underscoring Roger Ailes’s power inside the network… Murdoch’s own views would be considered liberal lies on Fox News.” (Pg. 173-174)
They state, “Fox News scored another victory when Sarah Palin signed on to the network as a contributor… She went from being a relatively unknown governor with no national platform to one of the most recognizable faces in the country. And that came with perks: a bevy of staff, security, and tens of thousands of dollars of designer clothing …Palin was also in a position to earn significant fees for speaking engagements, playing pundit, and putting her name on books. But every day she spent in the world of Alaska politics was a lost opportunity to promote conservative issues… Plus, governing was boring; being a media star was exciting.” (Pg. 207-208)
For the 2010 elections, “There was no balance. The line between news and opinion did not matter… For two years, Fox had worked toward this moment. It had served as the communications hub of the Republican Party… raised tens of millions… and used the Tea Parties to build a movement that supplied bodies for the Republican field operation. Now it was time to see the fruits of that labor materialize.” (Pg. 236-237)
They conclude, “Ailes knows his power is based on Fox’s perceived neutrality between Republican candidates, ensuring the network remains the venue of choice for the GOP hopefuls… At Fox, Ailes has ushered in the era of post-truth politics. The facts no longer matter, only what is politically expedient, sensationalistic, and designed to confirm the preexisting opinions of a large audience… Fox broadcasted and laundered these lies and others like them until they became gospel for a segment of the population… There is simply nothing comparable on the left. No mainstream left-of-center media organization… departs so willingly and extensively from journalism’s fundamental mission to report facts as fairly and objectively as possible… Roger Ailes has been at the forefront of a political culture that seeks to divide our country… Fox has convinced its audience that global warming does not exist. Republicans felt compelled to push our nation to the edge of default because they feared the reaction of their Fox News-watching base.” (Pg. 283-284)
This book will be ‘must reading’ for liberals/progressives seeking a critical perspective on Fox News.
The authors of this 2012 book wrote in the Introduction, “Media Matters, our organization, produces… research … focused on correcting conservative misinformation in the media… in early 2009, we noticed a marked increase in politically motivated misinformation coming from Fox News… their influence and reach within the media and with the public at large as the most-watched cable news network made it even more important to counteract their distortions of the truth… We live in a cynical time, when words like ‘fair’ and ‘balanced’ are used as slogans to sell content that is anything but. When the words of lobbyists and the politicians they support are given equal weight with the consensus of scienfific experts … Reporters often ask why they should trust Media Matters any more than Fox… Media Matters makes no claim of being neutral; we proudly wear our progressive ideology on our sleeve… But our research and reporting stick to the facts and are painstakingly documented. Fox, on the other hand, claims to be a ‘fair and balanced’ news network while brazenly broadcasting demonstrable lies and distortions, always with a conservative spin.” (Pg. 11-12)
They assert, “And the network’s partisan misinformation has not been limited to the dry facts of reporting on political or legislative issues---some of the consequences of its poorly vetted and politicially motivated investigations have unjustly and seriously damaged lives and careers… instead of seeking to get to the bottom of these stories, Fox based its work on distortions, smears, and heavily edited video, often used out of context. These ‘news’ stories had little or no journalistic value and were aired simply to harm progressives… [Fox] is something unprecedented… a news business that is willing to put politics above all else.” (Pg. 15-16)
They report, “[Roger] Ailes’ recipe for success with the Fox News Channel, for the first decade of its existence, was to take conservative talk radio and move it onto cable television… it rose to prominence during the George W. Bush administration… Ailes’s broadcast philosophy followed his political philosophy … Running Fox News has made Ailes an extremely rich man.” (Pg. 36-37) They add, “After more than a decade of Ailes’ leadership… He was in charge of the largest political megaphone on the right, speaking directly with more conservatives every day than any arm of the Republican Party… He has loyal lieutenants in his prime-time hosts Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity… And, on the day before Barack Obama became commander in chief, Ailes added a new weapon to his arsenal: Glenn Beck.” (Pg. 41)
They explain, “Fox’s strategy revolved around the theory that there was an audience of news consumers being underserved in the marketplace… In their minds, Fox was biased---toward America… The network’s ideological clarity enabled it to innovate in ways that would leave the competition in the dust. In the wake of September 11, Fox News jumped on two opportunities to distinguish itself… [The first was the ‘ticker’]… Fox News unveiled its ticker and CNN quickly followed suit… Fox’s second innovation … was the simple addition of an American flag to the Fox News logo… By linking the American flag to the network, Fox declared, ‘We are America, and we’re taking sides.’” (Pg. 56-57)
After the 2008 election, “Just as George W. Bush disappeared from Fox News’s election-night coverage, the legacy of his presidency seemed to vanish from the network the next day. It was as if the eight-year period that had seen two major wars, a massive financial crisis… had never happened… Before Barack Obama had been president-elect for a single week, Fox hosts were already blaming him for the state of the economy.” (Pg. 79) Later, they add, “In 2009… No longer would it simply be infotainment for the conservative base. Fox could now become a political vehicle designed to advance an ideological agenda.” (Pg. 91)
They observe, “The Tea Parties---and the coverage they received---created a sense that the president was not invincible and that his agenda could be stopped. Perhaps most important, this conservative uprising made President Obama’s grassroots operation, Organizing for America, seem impotent… With the Tea Party movement looming large, Democrats in swing districts watched the Tea Parties fearfully.” (Pg. 114)
When ‘Obamacare’ was being debated, commentators like Sean Hannity claimed that it “will end private insurance.” But the authors add, “Quite the opposite. The Obama plan relied on the private market as the primary provider of insurance, much to the consternation of many in the progressive movement… While… these distortions made an impact, none was more damaging than the idea that health care reform would create ‘death panels’ with the power to decide who receives treatment and who is left to die. The ‘death panel’ lie became impossible to kill and drove the national conversation about health care reform for months.” (Pg. 117) “Later, Dick Morris [said]… this bill … gives the federal government the power to tell people, ‘No, you can’t have this bypass surgery. You have to die.’ Morris’s claim was absurd in its face.” (Pg. 135)
They recount, “What ultimately doomed [Van] Jones’s tenure at the White House was the charge that he signed a petition distributed by conspiracy theorists claiming that our government was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks… Jones would state that … He had never accused the Bush administration of planning the attacks. At worst, Jones carelessly added his name to a petition from a dubious source… Jones resigned on September 5… After the Van Jones episode, Glenn Beck was no longer just a host; he had taken a scalp.” (Pg. 150-151)
They report, “In Fox News’s reporting … ACORN was targeted … for voter registration irregularities… voter registration in the United States is a difficult business, with complicated rules that often vary from location to location. ACORN would collect hundreds of thousands of registrations, some of which contained fraudulent or funny names [e.g., ‘Mickey Mouse’]… While this proved embarrassing for ACORN… there was no chance that anyone using these fake names would end up casting illegal votes.” (Pg. 159)
They state, “The War on Christmas was a particularly egregious example of Fox’s creating a story where none existed. Each year, as the holiday season began, the network would search for examples of individuals, corporations, or municipalities removing Christmas from the public square. The fight was personal to Roger Ailes, who had engaged in his own pro-Christmas activism.” (Pg. 164)
They outline, “The ACORN saga also provided a perfect example of how Fox helps conservatives stir up national controversies: STEP 1: Conservative activists introduce the lie… STEP 2: Fox News devotes massive coverage to the story… STEP 3: Fox attacks other outlets for ignoring the controversy… STEP 4: Mainstream outlets begin reporting on the story… STEP 5: Media critics, pundits praise Fox News’s coverage… STEP 6: The story falls apart after the damage has been done.” (Pg. 168-170)
They note, “Climate change is one of the issues that exposed the divisions between Rupert Murdoch and Fox News, underscoring Roger Ailes’s power inside the network… Murdoch’s own views would be considered liberal lies on Fox News.” (Pg. 173-174)
They state, “Fox News scored another victory when Sarah Palin signed on to the network as a contributor… She went from being a relatively unknown governor with no national platform to one of the most recognizable faces in the country. And that came with perks: a bevy of staff, security, and tens of thousands of dollars of designer clothing …Palin was also in a position to earn significant fees for speaking engagements, playing pundit, and putting her name on books. But every day she spent in the world of Alaska politics was a lost opportunity to promote conservative issues… Plus, governing was boring; being a media star was exciting.” (Pg. 207-208)
For the 2010 elections, “There was no balance. The line between news and opinion did not matter… For two years, Fox had worked toward this moment. It had served as the communications hub of the Republican Party… raised tens of millions… and used the Tea Parties to build a movement that supplied bodies for the Republican field operation. Now it was time to see the fruits of that labor materialize.” (Pg. 236-237)
They conclude, “Ailes knows his power is based on Fox’s perceived neutrality between Republican candidates, ensuring the network remains the venue of choice for the GOP hopefuls… At Fox, Ailes has ushered in the era of post-truth politics. The facts no longer matter, only what is politically expedient, sensationalistic, and designed to confirm the preexisting opinions of a large audience… Fox broadcasted and laundered these lies and others like them until they became gospel for a segment of the population… There is simply nothing comparable on the left. No mainstream left-of-center media organization… departs so willingly and extensively from journalism’s fundamental mission to report facts as fairly and objectively as possible… Roger Ailes has been at the forefront of a political culture that seeks to divide our country… Fox has convinced its audience that global warming does not exist. Republicans felt compelled to push our nation to the edge of default because they feared the reaction of their Fox News-watching base.” (Pg. 283-284)
This book will be ‘must reading’ for liberals/progressives seeking a critical perspective on Fox News.
May 26, 2013
"Fox BAD!" is the most basic gist of the book. Co-written by David Brock, Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters, the book is essentially a publication of what MM puts out. While personally I would side with MM than Fox, the book just wasn't very well-written and I didn't care for the bias. I suppose I should have known that this book would be biased considering that the Media Matters logo appears on the cover, but I was thoroughly bored by the text.
The book follows a series of events and breaks down where the authors see bias. This runs from the election to the rise of the Tea Party to the MA special election of Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley. Although interesting as an idea, again I was thoroughly bored by most of what the authors wrote. It read a little too much as propaganda and I suppose I was just too cynical to enjoy it.
It's worth reading for anyone interested in politics, regardless of the political affiliation. And while this book looks at things from a Democratic/liberal/lefty point of view, conservative/Republican/right people still might find it of interest to see how MM breaks down and attacks what they see as problems with Fox's reporting.
Good if you're interested in politics, but I'd strongly recommend you just borrow it from the library or buy it on sale/clearance if you must.
The book follows a series of events and breaks down where the authors see bias. This runs from the election to the rise of the Tea Party to the MA special election of Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley. Although interesting as an idea, again I was thoroughly bored by most of what the authors wrote. It read a little too much as propaganda and I suppose I was just too cynical to enjoy it.
It's worth reading for anyone interested in politics, regardless of the political affiliation. And while this book looks at things from a Democratic/liberal/lefty point of view, conservative/Republican/right people still might find it of interest to see how MM breaks down and attacks what they see as problems with Fox's reporting.
Good if you're interested in politics, but I'd strongly recommend you just borrow it from the library or buy it on sale/clearance if you must.
June 6, 2018
This analysis of how Roger Ailes morphed Fox News from an arguably standard cable news vehicle into a propaganda machine for the more extremist edge of the Republican Party (Tea Party anyone?) is sobering reading. The irony of Trump blathering endlessly on about "fake news" while venerating the network that actually invented it is, sadly, little more than a sick joke. The strategy was simple enough - seize on an unverified rumour (aka lie) that could be used against a prominent Democrat, deliberately ignore any opportunity to verify it, then repeat it over a variety of programmes often enough for it to become true. Example? Obama is not an American citizen & a Muslim to boot. Both accusations were unverified, & easily refuted, but each lasted for years & I have no doubt that soldered-on Trump supporters still believe them to be true. Fox also began a habit of inviting Republicans who were standing for office to appear on its programmes to explicitly seek donations from viewers. Incredible. Published in 2012, before Trump was anything more than a attention-seeking property developer & reality TV 'star' (so nothing much has changed there) it does not include Ailes' shameful departure from Fox under a deluge of sexual harassment claims. Fortunately, for him, his severance cushion amounted to many squillions of dollars. So next time you hear any right wing nut job moan about the 'liberal media' remind them that the most successful cable news programme in the U.S. deliberately promotes conservative (to say the least) values & denigrates anyone even remotely liberal. Want to stoke your reserves of outrage & fury? Read this book.
January 1, 2019
That moment when you are in the middle of reading this book and your father unknowingly and coincidently sends you the antithesis, Primetime Propaganda by Ben Shapiro for Christmas!
— Objective Investigative journalism is imperative to the functioning of a society. I’m thrilled there are people out there calling these pathetic assholes on their shit and I’m glad to have learned some of the terrible shit Beck, Ailes and others have done that I previously was not aware of but I wanted more analysis. When you read accounts like this of lying, cheating, and law breaking you can assume and discern it’s for greed and power and “winning” and fame and fortune and drama and ratings and so on, but I always wish I could hear confessional analysis from the horse’s mouth or at least some deeper musings on the why from undeniably unbiased scientific economic, philosophical, and psychological experts (not pundits).
— Objective Investigative journalism is imperative to the functioning of a society. I’m thrilled there are people out there calling these pathetic assholes on their shit and I’m glad to have learned some of the terrible shit Beck, Ailes and others have done that I previously was not aware of but I wanted more analysis. When you read accounts like this of lying, cheating, and law breaking you can assume and discern it’s for greed and power and “winning” and fame and fortune and drama and ratings and so on, but I always wish I could hear confessional analysis from the horse’s mouth or at least some deeper musings on the why from undeniably unbiased scientific economic, philosophical, and psychological experts (not pundits).
January 20, 2020
If you’ve ever wondered how Fox News not only came into being but how it went from being a conservative news network to being a dishonest propaganda machine for the Republican Party, this is a fast and informative read. People who want news, rather than lies, would do well to look for their news from other outlets than Fox. It was created in lies, grew by employing liars, and lives on as a disinformation network. It has gotten much worse since this book was originally published.
February 11, 2020
A failed attempt to show how biased Fox is while they are obviuosly biased. Example: "... The leftist aren't leaned to blindly believe arguments from the left as right wing supporters are...". The fact is that Fox is successful and leftist agencies are not. It doesn't mean that Fox is doing things correctly but many arguments in this book are idiologically loaded.
November 14, 2022
Again, this might be my fault for not having read this at the time of publication, but this was a lot of stuff that's become startlingly obvious in the interim.
That said, I did learn that the news ticker didn't make a (non-stock market) appearance until 9/11, and now I know where my entire attention span went. Thanks, Osama.
That said, I did learn that the news ticker didn't make a (non-stock market) appearance until 9/11, and now I know where my entire attention span went. Thanks, Osama.
October 19, 2024
Media Matters does a meticulous job of showing news events and how Fox then presented them to their audiences. It shows an important transition in their approach around 2011 and 2012 that was just the starting point for their messaging around the 2016 election and beyond. I’d be interested in a continuation of this book.
April 18, 2021
Unfortunately, everyone who I wish would read this book had no interest in doing so. Still, despite my years of resentment toward Fox, this still managed to surprise me with the depth of their distortion of journalism and pointed efforts to influence politics in a big way.
May 6, 2020
A good read..
May 26, 2020
Clearly laid examples of showing why Fox News is nothing more than a GOP propaganda machine.
July 6, 2025
I knew Fox News was bad but I had no idea the extent of blatant lies. It was good to read it on somewhat of a chronological timeline to understand some of this history. Eye opening!
March 25, 2012
It's hard not to use the cliche adjective "frightening" to describe the revelations in The Fox Effect. For example, Fox "News" head (and former legendary Republican operative) Roger Ailes can send a memo saying, for example, to start stigmatizing the Affordable Health Care Act as "government-run health care", and almost immediately, all Fox "News" personnel, including those who insist they are legitimate journalists and deserve to be taken seriously, change their language to conform to Roger Ailes' directive.
Media Matters for America (MMfA) is an organization that analyzes right-wing media in general, but over the last 10 years, since FNC began seriously challenging the major networks on its way to establishing its present dominance, MMfA has spent more and more of its resources exposing the deceptive practices of FNC. MMfA Founder David Brock and MMfA Vice-President Ari Rabin-Havt, the authors of The Fox Effect, and their research staff, describe the astonishing rise to power within the Republican Party, and over the American electorate as a whole, of Roger Ailes' television network. (In response, FNC commentators actively attacked Brock, Rabin-Havt, and the MMfA organization, as could be expected.)
Through years of painstaking research, MMfA has documented how FNC has come to function purely as a propaganda machine for the Republican Party. Roger Ailes rules with an iron fist, firing anyone who doesn't literally toe the party line. Ailes takes part in deciding what stories get little or no coverage, such as the vast amount of time George W. Bush spent on vacation during his presidency when Republicans bash Obama for taking even a few days off. Ailes rules the decisions about what topics the FNC manufactures, churns, then bashes the "main-stream media" for ignoring, such as the Obama administration's nonexistent "war on Christmas". Even the owner of the network, News Corp., and its infamous head, Rupert Murdoch, profess disagreement, at times, with the extreme views that Roger Ailes promotes through FNC. But Murdoch almost never intervenes, probably because FNC is so financially lucrative.
One time that Murdoch did, slightly, rein in Ailes occurred when FNC began vigorously supporting the nascent Republican group dubbed the Tea Party. When FNC commentators promoted fund-raising rallies at which admission was charged for events where their own network's hosts were the featured speakers, News Corp. decided FNC had gone too far. The FNC hosts pulled out of their speaking committments, although they continued to endorse the rallies, and encouraged guests on their shows while on the air to urge viewers to donate money to the Tea Party and its candidates. The change was window-dressing, at best.
What should be done about Fox "News"? The only problem with this book, I felt, was that after scaring the living daylights out of the reader, it offers almost no method to cleanse our society of this toxic communication pollution. If people want to attend a rally at which extreme views are expressed, so be it. That is a right we all cherish as fundamental to our democracy. But, I believe that, in some respects, the airwaves are similar to the air we breathe, and should be protected in the way that smoking is banned in bars and restaurants. There are many places in which Fox "News" blares from TV screens over which I have no control. I should not be subjected to this demonstrably dishonest propaganda.
Also, where information is presented on air as being accurate, but can be proven to be false, and where evidence exists to prove that the staff of FNC knew, or should have known, that it was false, FNC should be prosecuted for deceiving the public. The basis for such prosecution, in my opinion, is that, as an apparently authoritative source of information, they have a burden to ensure that their programming is trustworthy. Also, they are using airwaves that, being a valuable and limited resource necessary for the functioning of society, I believe are like a public utility and should be subject to government regulation.
Obviously, as long as there is a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, and enough senators to filibuster any Senate bill, these proposals would go nowhere. But I do believe that our future as a democratic society rests on improving the political atmosphere, and that requires pollution controls that would necessitate cleaning up Fox "News". If you don't believe me, read The Fox Effect.
Media Matters for America (MMfA) is an organization that analyzes right-wing media in general, but over the last 10 years, since FNC began seriously challenging the major networks on its way to establishing its present dominance, MMfA has spent more and more of its resources exposing the deceptive practices of FNC. MMfA Founder David Brock and MMfA Vice-President Ari Rabin-Havt, the authors of The Fox Effect, and their research staff, describe the astonishing rise to power within the Republican Party, and over the American electorate as a whole, of Roger Ailes' television network. (In response, FNC commentators actively attacked Brock, Rabin-Havt, and the MMfA organization, as could be expected.)
Through years of painstaking research, MMfA has documented how FNC has come to function purely as a propaganda machine for the Republican Party. Roger Ailes rules with an iron fist, firing anyone who doesn't literally toe the party line. Ailes takes part in deciding what stories get little or no coverage, such as the vast amount of time George W. Bush spent on vacation during his presidency when Republicans bash Obama for taking even a few days off. Ailes rules the decisions about what topics the FNC manufactures, churns, then bashes the "main-stream media" for ignoring, such as the Obama administration's nonexistent "war on Christmas". Even the owner of the network, News Corp., and its infamous head, Rupert Murdoch, profess disagreement, at times, with the extreme views that Roger Ailes promotes through FNC. But Murdoch almost never intervenes, probably because FNC is so financially lucrative.
One time that Murdoch did, slightly, rein in Ailes occurred when FNC began vigorously supporting the nascent Republican group dubbed the Tea Party. When FNC commentators promoted fund-raising rallies at which admission was charged for events where their own network's hosts were the featured speakers, News Corp. decided FNC had gone too far. The FNC hosts pulled out of their speaking committments, although they continued to endorse the rallies, and encouraged guests on their shows while on the air to urge viewers to donate money to the Tea Party and its candidates. The change was window-dressing, at best.
What should be done about Fox "News"? The only problem with this book, I felt, was that after scaring the living daylights out of the reader, it offers almost no method to cleanse our society of this toxic communication pollution. If people want to attend a rally at which extreme views are expressed, so be it. That is a right we all cherish as fundamental to our democracy. But, I believe that, in some respects, the airwaves are similar to the air we breathe, and should be protected in the way that smoking is banned in bars and restaurants. There are many places in which Fox "News" blares from TV screens over which I have no control. I should not be subjected to this demonstrably dishonest propaganda.
Also, where information is presented on air as being accurate, but can be proven to be false, and where evidence exists to prove that the staff of FNC knew, or should have known, that it was false, FNC should be prosecuted for deceiving the public. The basis for such prosecution, in my opinion, is that, as an apparently authoritative source of information, they have a burden to ensure that their programming is trustworthy. Also, they are using airwaves that, being a valuable and limited resource necessary for the functioning of society, I believe are like a public utility and should be subject to government regulation.
Obviously, as long as there is a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, and enough senators to filibuster any Senate bill, these proposals would go nowhere. But I do believe that our future as a democratic society rests on improving the political atmosphere, and that requires pollution controls that would necessitate cleaning up Fox "News". If you don't believe me, read The Fox Effect.
August 25, 2015
So Media Matters for America (a non-profit that analyzes and corrects conservative media misinformation) gets criticized a lot for harping on Fox News. The same organization also claims to be disappointed that they have to spend so much of their time and effort correcting the record of the most widely viewed and respected of conservative media outlets, simply because of the volume and consequence of what Fox puts out. This is their book length analysis of how Fox News has achieved its current status as a more sinning than sinned against conservative force. The subtitle labels Fox a propaganda machine, but I’m not sure if that’s entirely accurate. A propaganda machine is commonly a division of some organization or government that the propaganda is designed to benefit, but Fox’s history, especially its involvement in the 2016 Republican presidential primary, which this book does not cover, show the network to be less a subservient arm than a mover and shaker in and of itself. It would not be inaccurate to say that Fox News is the dominant force behind what American conservatives believe and care about, more so than any radio show, website, politician, or even the GOP itself; the tail is wagging the dog.
The Fox Effect tracks the network’s journey from “fair and balanced” to “the balance”, using accounts of office politics and scheduling decisions, coupled with recaps of the various sins Media Matters has chronicled in the past. Fox News hosts declaring Obama a failed president in his first week feature here, as does the tension between Murdoch and Ailes for control of Fox’s soul. Fox’s complicity and eagerness to spread and even create false news narratives is on display throughout, and the hits only end because of the inherent limitations of time and space. Fox News has continued in much the same way since this book’s publication (in 2012), and shows absolutely no sign of stopping anytime soon. Perhaps the day will come when we don’t regularly see polls showing that watching Fox News makes you objectively less informed than someone who never seeks out any source of news, but until that day, it’s best to be vaccinated against this infection. Give this book a read.
The Fox Effect tracks the network’s journey from “fair and balanced” to “the balance”, using accounts of office politics and scheduling decisions, coupled with recaps of the various sins Media Matters has chronicled in the past. Fox News hosts declaring Obama a failed president in his first week feature here, as does the tension between Murdoch and Ailes for control of Fox’s soul. Fox’s complicity and eagerness to spread and even create false news narratives is on display throughout, and the hits only end because of the inherent limitations of time and space. Fox News has continued in much the same way since this book’s publication (in 2012), and shows absolutely no sign of stopping anytime soon. Perhaps the day will come when we don’t regularly see polls showing that watching Fox News makes you objectively less informed than someone who never seeks out any source of news, but until that day, it’s best to be vaccinated against this infection. Give this book a read.
November 16, 2015
3.5 stars
I think I read this book a bit too late for it to feel all that immediate, as four years have elapsed between the present depicted here and the present I inhabit. I wish I had read this earlier, as the events of 2008-2010 would have felt far more immediate in the lead-up to the 2012 presidential race than they do now.
Nevertheless, the focus of this book remains relevant: Fox News, far from its "fair and balanced" slogan, has long been a journalistically unreliable mouthpiece of the Republican party. In addition to documenting the numerous pieces of misinformation spread by Fox in the 2008 campaign cycle and the early days of Obama's presidency, the authors also do a good job of highlighting the split in the Republican Party between establishment figures like Karl Rove and the radical, hardline Tea Partiers, an issue that remains pertinent with Boehner's resignation as Speaker of the House and Paul Ryan's hesitancy to assume the tenuous and stressful role of speaker in such a polarized environment.
(Side note: Boehner's prevention of Congressmen from attending Glenn Beck's Israel conference explains pretty well why Beck is so obsessed with proving Boehner's alcoholism...)
I knew Fox News was very far from being objective, but I didn't know anything about Roger Ailes, and so it was very informative to learn his own political history. Fascinating that the network has become such a kingmaker for the Right, especially for the marginalized/fringe whose views aren't accepted by the establishment. At times, this became a bit repetitive and slow, and I didn't buy all the blame heaped at Fox's door (yes, Sarah Palin's bullseye chart was tasteless, but she was hardly advocating the Giffords shooting. However, I generally found it very convincing and am fascinated to see how the Fox essentialness to Republicans is playing out in 2016.
I think I read this book a bit too late for it to feel all that immediate, as four years have elapsed between the present depicted here and the present I inhabit. I wish I had read this earlier, as the events of 2008-2010 would have felt far more immediate in the lead-up to the 2012 presidential race than they do now.
Nevertheless, the focus of this book remains relevant: Fox News, far from its "fair and balanced" slogan, has long been a journalistically unreliable mouthpiece of the Republican party. In addition to documenting the numerous pieces of misinformation spread by Fox in the 2008 campaign cycle and the early days of Obama's presidency, the authors also do a good job of highlighting the split in the Republican Party between establishment figures like Karl Rove and the radical, hardline Tea Partiers, an issue that remains pertinent with Boehner's resignation as Speaker of the House and Paul Ryan's hesitancy to assume the tenuous and stressful role of speaker in such a polarized environment.
(Side note: Boehner's prevention of Congressmen from attending Glenn Beck's Israel conference explains pretty well why Beck is so obsessed with proving Boehner's alcoholism...)
I knew Fox News was very far from being objective, but I didn't know anything about Roger Ailes, and so it was very informative to learn his own political history. Fascinating that the network has become such a kingmaker for the Right, especially for the marginalized/fringe whose views aren't accepted by the establishment. At times, this became a bit repetitive and slow, and I didn't buy all the blame heaped at Fox's door (yes, Sarah Palin's bullseye chart was tasteless, but she was hardly advocating the Giffords shooting. However, I generally found it very convincing and am fascinated to see how the Fox essentialness to Republicans is playing out in 2016.
January 7, 2017
Paints a pretty clear and convincing argument that Fox is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Outright lies and distortions are common practice for most all of Fox's contributors. This book seems to be a justification of the maxim attributed to Joseph Goebbels, "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. "... taking smears and distortions originating from marginal news sources and interest groups and repeating them ad nauseam until they became “fact” to a receptive segment of voters. Fox is basically the tail trying to wag the dog.
I love that a quarter of this book's volume are pages citing sources. About the exact opposite of what Fox does. If you can't cite a source, then you're just making shit up.
The reason I'm not rating this higher is because it focused on Roger Ailes, who is no longer with Fox. Covered his views, his activities before Fox, and involvement with Fox. Obviously written before Ailes stepped down/got fired from Fox. Still an interesting read about the philosophy of Fox. Little indication that Fox will be changed much with Ailes' departure since the culture has probably been engrained there now. If I would have read it prior to Roger Ailes' resignation and before the 2016 elections, it would have gotten a four stars.
Either way, Fox seems to strictly be a propaganda machine. Such a shame that so many people give them credibility. They deserve more criticism than what they are getting, for sure.
“You can produce a cable television network with people who talk nicely and are articulate and are blonde and look good on television and say provocative things. But it is not based on any discovery or intent to get to the bottom of something.”
I love that a quarter of this book's volume are pages citing sources. About the exact opposite of what Fox does. If you can't cite a source, then you're just making shit up.
The reason I'm not rating this higher is because it focused on Roger Ailes, who is no longer with Fox. Covered his views, his activities before Fox, and involvement with Fox. Obviously written before Ailes stepped down/got fired from Fox. Still an interesting read about the philosophy of Fox. Little indication that Fox will be changed much with Ailes' departure since the culture has probably been engrained there now. If I would have read it prior to Roger Ailes' resignation and before the 2016 elections, it would have gotten a four stars.
Either way, Fox seems to strictly be a propaganda machine. Such a shame that so many people give them credibility. They deserve more criticism than what they are getting, for sure.
“You can produce a cable television network with people who talk nicely and are articulate and are blonde and look good on television and say provocative things. But it is not based on any discovery or intent to get to the bottom of something.”
May 23, 2012
As some one who has seen the Fox effect on people, this book was pretty amazing. This is my first review but hopefully it helps.
The authors put forward the argument that the network Roger Ailes built is one that isn't living up to their "fair and balanced" approach to the news. Brock and Rabin-Havt argue that the network doesn't specialize in the news but pander in the sensational and scare tactics instead of being objective when it comes to presenting the news. Each chapter presents multiple instances where Fox News sticks to their conservative message, no matter the cost and no matter who it hurt along the way. From making up the "War on Christmas" to demonizing and forcing people out of office. It makes one wonder just how much longer Fox can continue to function this way but they hold on strong.
My only issue with the book was that every now and then it would jump from one illustration to the next with out much of a transition. Many times it was to draw connections but it led to a little bit of confusion that took multiple readings to get everything straight in my mind. The one thing I loved with this book was the research that the authors and Media Matters put into this book. It seemed like every single point had a foot note going along with it. And a lot of their research was using Fox's words against them, my favorite. Read the book, love the book, learn from the book!
The authors put forward the argument that the network Roger Ailes built is one that isn't living up to their "fair and balanced" approach to the news. Brock and Rabin-Havt argue that the network doesn't specialize in the news but pander in the sensational and scare tactics instead of being objective when it comes to presenting the news. Each chapter presents multiple instances where Fox News sticks to their conservative message, no matter the cost and no matter who it hurt along the way. From making up the "War on Christmas" to demonizing and forcing people out of office. It makes one wonder just how much longer Fox can continue to function this way but they hold on strong.
My only issue with the book was that every now and then it would jump from one illustration to the next with out much of a transition. Many times it was to draw connections but it led to a little bit of confusion that took multiple readings to get everything straight in my mind. The one thing I loved with this book was the research that the authors and Media Matters put into this book. It seemed like every single point had a foot note going along with it. And a lot of their research was using Fox's words against them, my favorite. Read the book, love the book, learn from the book!
March 6, 2012
There's not much in general terms I didn't know about Fox's antics with Ailes at the head, but this book documents page after page of unethical and immoral practices that should be illegal in a civilised society, a civilised society being a world where reporting news and reporting truth are one and the same. The more I read of it the angrier I got - I don't know how this organisation continues to exist, but it does, and at the top.
I've given this book a 4/5 rating only because at points the writing wasn't as smooth as I thought it should be. There are times it stumbled slightly (only slightly), and the introduction and epilogue could have been better written. That said, it's a minor criticism, but absent that I thought the book was over the top worth the read, I finished it in less than a day, only stopping to sleep for a few hours and go to a meeting.
This book should be required reading for anyone who has any desire to vote - the alternative is a society in which a majority of voters have been lied to, misinformed and deceived, all in an effort to manipulate public opinions for the benefit of a very small minority of people in the country. Oh wait, that describes not only the US but many or most or all other "democracies" in the "free world."
Read this book, we'll all continue to suffer the consequences if you don't.
I've given this book a 4/5 rating only because at points the writing wasn't as smooth as I thought it should be. There are times it stumbled slightly (only slightly), and the introduction and epilogue could have been better written. That said, it's a minor criticism, but absent that I thought the book was over the top worth the read, I finished it in less than a day, only stopping to sleep for a few hours and go to a meeting.
This book should be required reading for anyone who has any desire to vote - the alternative is a society in which a majority of voters have been lied to, misinformed and deceived, all in an effort to manipulate public opinions for the benefit of a very small minority of people in the country. Oh wait, that describes not only the US but many or most or all other "democracies" in the "free world."
Read this book, we'll all continue to suffer the consequences if you don't.
March 22, 2012
I am so the target audience for this book, but so far I'm not particularly loving its inartful writing. From the introduction on the blast of vitriol is like drinking from a firehose.
*****************************************************
Thoughts upon completion: the folks at Media Matters must have stomachs of iron. There are a lot of citations, a lot of direct Fox News personalities' quotes (juxtaposed against the actual facts), lots of leaked Fox memos, etc. They compiled a lot of information to write this exposé. It's a slam-dunk, case closed, all I's dotted and T's crossed conclusion Fox News is not fair and balanced.
But here's the problem - I would have to walk around with this book wherever I go and have it ready whenever I encounter the Fox audience (ahem, everyone I work with; my clients; my parents; my in-laws, ad nauseum) so that I could point to the paragraphs, and quote the lies and reveal the truths to support what I say and believe... and it just wouldn't matter to them. That's the brilliance of Roger Ailes. He should be studied in every business school in the country.
Speaking of business, I suspect (but the writers do not examine) that Roger Ailes's, not to mention Rupert Murdoch's, top priority is to make money. It's not journalism.
*****************************************************
Thoughts upon completion: the folks at Media Matters must have stomachs of iron. There are a lot of citations, a lot of direct Fox News personalities' quotes (juxtaposed against the actual facts), lots of leaked Fox memos, etc. They compiled a lot of information to write this exposé. It's a slam-dunk, case closed, all I's dotted and T's crossed conclusion Fox News is not fair and balanced.
But here's the problem - I would have to walk around with this book wherever I go and have it ready whenever I encounter the Fox audience (ahem, everyone I work with; my clients; my parents; my in-laws, ad nauseum) so that I could point to the paragraphs, and quote the lies and reveal the truths to support what I say and believe... and it just wouldn't matter to them. That's the brilliance of Roger Ailes. He should be studied in every business school in the country.
Speaking of business, I suspect (but the writers do not examine) that Roger Ailes's, not to mention Rupert Murdoch's, top priority is to make money. It's not journalism.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews