Not everyone is Nancy Grace. Still, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart blur the line between news and commentary for a reason. As Stewart himself put it, the Fox News business model is agenda-driven sensationalism. MSNBC tried to model it, but has failed to reach that degree of “politically charged agendas.”
In the ongoing war between Fox and Jon Stewart — which, if you haven’t looked into, is almost as entertaining as President Frank Underwood versus anyone, really — Chris Wallace, Bill O’Reilly and the Fox Sunday newscast have stood firm on the front lines of defending the only truthful commentary on television. Denouncing Stewart as a left wing sensationalist, they charge that he is an operative of the “liberal media” who will do anything to denounce Christian conservative values. Let me warn you, though, that the war on Christmas won’t be covered for another two months, at least.
An important battle within this war was when four years ago, Wallace had Stewart on his program and attempted to point out the overwhelming liberal bias of the “lamestream” media, as O’Reilly coined it. Stewart turned around and collectively decried that neither he nor the “lamestream” media were hardcore liberals, rather that they are addicted sensationalists.
I talked about this two weeks ago with the Ferguson incident. If the national news media hadn’t magnified the entire issue and taken advantage of the sensationalism surrounding the whole incident, then perhaps maybe out-of-state looters may not have come to the riots. Instead of hypotheticals, the public may have heard the facts of the case, many of which were undetermined.
Not to mention, does anybody remember Benghazi? The relentless news coverage some 18 months later, specifically by Fox, riled up voters and just regurgitated old news with recycled questions aimed at energizing viewers. This past month, with the gridlock in Washington and controversies in Eastern Europe and Middle East, the Fox “news organization” hypothesized whether or not Washington would run more smoothly with Underwood as president rather than Barack Obama.
According to Fox, Obama being the president in a time of war doesn’t deserve the same respect as George W. Bush, just, you know, because. To their defense, the beige suit was something Bush never would have worn. But, while Frank may trump Barry in some alternate universe where Obama is the one pushing people in front of Metro trains, the reality of it is that whatever puts ratings up, the broadcast news media is more likely to cover, so it seems. After all, who could resist the business model of Sir Ron Burgundy?
As disappointed as I am in Fox for not following the ten commandments of journalism, it has compelled me to wonder what if it was the Burgundy Factor or the Ron File? Wouldn’t it go more smoothly since he is a fictional character, you know, kind of like that Kenyan, Hussein Obama?
No matter the speculation, it is true that Brick Tamland and Brian Fantana would bring in more viewers. Veronica Corningstone would run a show more smoothly than Megyn Kelly, as well. It’s true that in any alternate hypothetical wish-wash reality that things would be better.
So, I want to remind every political viewer that, yes, despite what the Bible says, Fox is, too, just as sensationalist, if not more than the “lamestream” media. The sensationalist media will die another day.