posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 10:06 PM
Letter from Fox News producer Charlie Reina to the Poynter Institute
So Chris Wallace says Fox News Channel really is fair and balanced. Well, I guess that settles it. We can all go home now. I mean, so what if
Wallace's salary as Fox's newest big- name anchor ends with a whole lot of zeroes? So what if he hasn't spent a day in the FNC newsroom yet?
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.")
Editorially, the FNC newsroom is under the constant control and vigilance of management. The pressure ranges from subtle to direct. First of all,
it's a news network run by one of the most high-profile political operatives of recent times. Everyone there understands that FNC is, to a large
extent, "Roger's Revenge" - against what he considers a liberal, pro-Democrat media establishment that has shunned him for decades. For the
staffers, many of whom are too young to have come up through the ranks of objective journalism, and all of whom are non-union, with no protections
regarding what they can be made to do, there is undue motivation to please the big boss.
Sometimes, this eagerness to serve Fox's ideological interests goes even beyond what management expects. For example, in June of last year, when a
California judge ruled the Pledge of Allegiance's "Under God" wording unconstitutional, FNC's newsroom chief ordered the judge's mailing address
and phone number put on the screen. The anchor, reading from the Teleprompter, found himself explaining that Fox was taking this unusual step so
viewers could go directly to the judge and get "as much information as possible" about his decision. To their credit, the big bosses recognized that
their underling's transparent attempt to serve their political interests might well threaten the judge's physical safety and ordered the offending
information removed from the screen as soon as they saw it. A few months later, this same eager-to-please newsroom chief ordered the removal of a
graphic quoting UN weapons inspector Hans Blix as saying his team had not yet found WMDs in Iraq. Fortunately, the electronic equipment was quicker on
the uptake (and less susceptible to office politics) than the toady and displayed the graphic before his order could be obeyed.
But 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. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular
point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it.
The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration's point of view
consistently comes across on FNC. This year, of course, the war in Iraq became a constant subject of The Memo. But along with the obvious -
information on who is where and what they'll be covering - there have been subtle hints as to the tone of the anchors' copy. For instance, from the
March 20th memo: "There is something utterly incomprehensible about Kofi Annan's remarks in which he allows that his thoughts are 'with the Iraqi
people.' One could ask where those thoughts were during the 23 years Saddam Hussein was brutalizing those same Iraqis. Food for thought." Can there
be any doubt that the memo was offering not only "food for thought," but a direction for the FNC writers and anchors to go? Especially after
describing the U.N. Secretary General's remarks as "utterly incomprehensible"?
The sad truth is, such subtlety is often all it takes to send Fox's newsroom personnel into action - or inaction, as the case may be. One day this
past spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, The Memo warned us that anti-war protesters would be "whining" about U.S. bombs killing Iraqi
civilians, and suggested they could tell that to the families of American soldiers dying there. Editing copy that morning, I was not surprised when an
eager young producer killed a correspondent's report on the day's fighting - simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi
These are not isolated incidents at Fox News Channel, where virtually no one of authority in the newsroom makes a move unmeasured against
management's politics, actual or perceived. At the Fair and Balanced network, everyone knows management's point of view, and, in case they're not
sure how to get it on air, The Memo is there to remind them.