Fox News bites the dust...

....soon, anyway.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200801290001

Fox News is in for a very rough 2008
by Eric Boehlert

My guess is that Fox News guru Roger Ailes has been reaching for the Tums
more often than usual early in the New Year, and there are lots of
reasons for the hovering angst.

Let's take an extended multiple choice quiz. Right now, which of the
following topics is likely causing the discomfort inside Ailes' Fox News
empire?

A) CNN's resurgence as the go-to cable destination for election coverage.
B) The incredible shrinking candidacy of Fox News' favored son, Rudy
Giuliani.
C) The still-standing candidacy of Fox News nemesis and well-funded,
anti-war GOP candidate Rep. Ron Paul.
D) The Democratic candidates' blanket refusal to debate on Fox News
during the primary season.
E) Host Bill O'Reilly being so desperate for an interview from a
Democratic contender that he had to schlep all the way to New Hampshire,
where he shoved an aide to Sen. Barack Obama and then had to be calmed
down by Secret Service agents.
F) Former Fox News architect and Ailes confidante Dan Cooper posting
chapters from his a wildly unflattering tell-all book about his old boss.
("The best thing that ever happened to Roger Ailes was 9/11.")
G) The fledgling Fox Business Network, whose anemic ratings are in danger
of being surpassed by some large city public access channels.
H) Host John Gibson's recent heartless attacks on actor Heath Ledger,
just hours after the young actor was found dead.
I) Fox News reporter Major Garrett botching his "exclusive" that Paul
Begala and James Carville were going to join Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clinton's presidential campaign, and then refusing to correct the record.

I'd say it's A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. (I doubt Gibson's grave-dancing or
Garrett's whopper caused Ailes a moment's concern.)

Bottom line is that Fox News is in for a very rough 2008. And the
umbrella reason for that is quite simple: Eight years ago the all-news
cable channel went all-in on the presidency of George Bush and became a
broadcast partner with the White House. Proof of that was on display
Sunday night, January 27, during Fox News' prime-time, "Fighting to the
Finish," an "historic documentary" on the final year of Bush's
presidency. Filmed in HD and featuring "unprecedented access," according
to the Fox News press release, the show was pure propaganda. (I must have
missed Fox News' "Fighting to the Finish" special back in 2000,
chronicling the conclusion of President Bill Clinton's second term and
his "extraordinarily consequential tenure.")

The point is that Fox News years ago made an obvious decision to appeal
almost exclusively to Republican viewers. The good news then for Fox News
was that it succeeded. The bad news now for Fox News is that it
succeeded.

Meaning, when the GOP catches a cold, everybody at Fox News gets sick. As
blogger Logan Murphy put it at Crooks and Liars, "Watching FOXNews
getting their comeuppance has been fun to watch. They made their bed, now
they're having to lie in it and it's not too comfortable."

The most obvious signs of Fox News' downturn have been the cable ratings
for the big primary and caucus votes this year, as well as the high-
profile debates. With this election season generating unprecedented voter
and viewer interest, Fox News' rating bumps to date have remained
underwhelming, to say the least.

For instance, on the night of the big New Hampshire primary, CNN, which
habitually trails behind Fox News in the prime-time race, attracted
nearly 250,000 more viewers than its top competitor, marking a changing-
of-the-guard of sorts.

The turnaround was striking when you consider that in 2004, even with no
Republicans running against Bush, Fox News was still able to draw 200,000
more viewers than CNN on the night of the New Hampshire Democratic
primary. Yet in 2008, with a very competitive GOP field, CNN was the
ratings winner from New Hampshire.

And just look at the ratings for January 19, which featured returns from
the Nevada caucus coming in during the late afternoon, and then fresh
returns from the South Carolina Republican primary being posted during
prime time that night. In the past, Fox News would have absolutely owned
that night of coverage, as conservative news junkies flocked to their
home team -- Fox News -- to see the results. But no more. CNN grabbed
nearly just as many prime-time viewers for the Republican South Carolina
returns as did Fox News.

The problem for Fox News is that it's the Democratic race that's creating
most of the excitement, yet Fox News has been forced to mostly watch the
race from the sidelines. That's because last winter, after Fox News tried
to smear Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for purportedly attending a radical
Muslim school as a child, liberal bloggers launched an initiative to get
Democratic candidates to boycott a debate co-sponsored by Fox News and
the Nevada Democratic Party. (The boycott, powered by Foxattacks.com, was
later extended to any and all Fox News debates.)

The point of the online crusade was not to simply embarrass Fox News or
rattle Nevada Democrats for being out of touch with the grassroots masses
that distrusted and despised Fox News. The point, instead, was to begin
chipping away, in a serious, consistent method, at Fox News' reputation.
To spell out that Fox News was nothing more than a Republican mouthpiece
and that Democrats need not engage with the News Corp. giant.

The lack of Democratic debates for Fox News has meant a huge setback for
the news organization from a ratings perspective. Just look at the grand
slam CNN hit last week when, on January 21, it broadcast the much-talked-
about Democratic debate from South Carolina. The CNN event not only
creamed Fox News in the ratings, nearly tripling its audience that night,
but the debate set a new cable news mark for the most viewers ever to
watch a primary debate.

In fact, of the 10 most-watched debates this election season, Fox has
aired just two, compared to CNN's five. Of the 10 most-watched debates,
six have featured Democrats; four Republicans.

CNN is virtually guaranteed another monster ratings win this week with a
pair of high-profile debates staged in California -- the Republicans on
Wednesday night and Democrats on Thursday.

No wonder CNN's so giddy these days. Here's the spin CNN president
Jonathan Klein put out following its New Hampshire ratings win: "There's
a freshness and exuberance to our coverage that the others just aren't
matching. ... Fox almost seems downright despondent in their coverage."

So I'm not the only one who feels like Fox News coverage, especially of
the Republican field, often feels like a televised wake. Or maybe that's
just been Fox News' collective, subconscious mourning of the Giuliani
campaign.

After all, Sean Hannity serves as Fox News' official ambassador to the
Giuliani campaign; a campaign that Ailes and Fox News were hoping to ride
back into the White House. Yet despite showering Giuliani with all kinds
of laudatory coverage, both Hannity and Ailes have been powerless, as
they've watched Giuliani's rudderless campaign go nowhere for months.

Even an all-out Fox News marketing blitz to label Giuliani "America's
Mayor" never got traction. In fact, it ranked right up there with the
launch of New Coke, in terms of branding success. (Watch this clip to see
the Fox News absurdity up-close.)

In the meantime, the rise of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and especially Mike
Huckabee, with his populist streak, has caused all sorts of consternation
at Fox News. Even the conservative Weekly Standard took notice. The
magazine recently wrote that "A lot of conservatives have problems with
both Huckabee and McCain. Last night on Fox, for example, Sean Hannity
could barely conceal his distaste for both pols."

And don't even mention Ron Paul's name to the folks at Fox News, who have
stepped outside their role as journalists to try to kneecap the anti-war
GOP candidate. The most blatant slap came right before the New Hampshire
primary, when Fox News refused to include Paul in a televised GOP debate,
despite the fact that just days earlier Paul grabbed 10 percent of the
vote in the Iowa caucus, nearly doubling the tally Giuliani posted.

Paul's Republican supporters became so incensed by the snub that they
literally chased Sean Hannity through the New Hampshire night chanting
"Fox News sucks!" and captured the scene in a homemade clip that really
has to be seen to be believed. (To recap New Hampshire for Fox News:
Hannity was pursued by a Republican mob, O'Reilly got into a shoving
match with an Obama aide, and CNN grabbed more viewers. Now that's a week
to remember!)

Oh, and we can't forget the wildly hyped launch of the Fox Business
Network, which, News Corp. execs bragged, would dethrone longtime cable
business news champ CNBC. Of course, that might happen one day. But the
early ratings for Fox Business Network have been unbelievably weak.

After two months on the air, Fox Business Network, available in 30
million homes, was attracting, on average, just 6,300 viewers on any
given weekday, according to Nielsen Media Research. That was good for a
nearly invisible .05 rating. (By comparison, CNBC during that period was
attracting 265,000 viewers.)

Making matters worse for Ailes was the fact that on January 22, as fears
mounted about a possible global financial crisis, CNBC posted its best
ratings in seven years, attracting 401,000 viewers that day.

The hurdle for Fox Business Network has always been simple: Why would
investors and day traders in search of reliable business information turn
from CNBC over to the Fox brand, which is so well-known for passing along
one-sided information? News Corp. always assumed Fox News would help
launch the business channel. But Fox News is taken seriously by so few
people, it may be hurting the business launch.

After all, Fox News continues to embarrass itself with a type of
journalism that nobody else in the industry would dare call professional.
And for proof of that look no further than Major Garrett, who is supposed
to be one of the channel's nonpartisan, serious journalists. He landed a
recent scoop about how former advisers to Bill Clinton, Paul Begala and
James Carville, were getting set to join Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Carville immediately shot the story down, telling Talking Points Memo's
Greg Sargent that very same day, "Fox was, is and will continue to be an
asinine and ignorant network. I have not spoken to anyone in the Clinton
campaign about this. I'm not getting back into domestic political
consulting."

Begala did Carville one better and directly emailed Garrett to deny the
story -- a story Garrett never bothered trying to check with Begala or
Carville before it was broadcast. Garrett's response to Begala's blanket
denial? Garrett told the Democratic operative that he would take his
denial "under advisement." [Emphasis added.]

Garrett then went back on the air and repeated the same story, and added
the fact that Begala had been on a conference call the day before with
Clinton advisers, which was also false. And no, despite his earlier email
exchange with Begala, Garrett never bothered to try to confirm the
conference call story with him before reporting it on Fox News.

On his Fox News blog, Garrett did acknowledge the Begala email and
claimed he'd be updating the fast-moving story soon -- which, he told
readers, would likely be confirmed the next day when the Clinton campaign
made the Begala/Carville announcement. But the next day when the story
imploded, Garrett simply ignored the embarrassing gaffe.

Recounting the whole Kafka-esque charade at the Huffington Post, Begala
wrote, "I've never had a more surrealistic day. If this is what one of
Fox's best and most respected reporters is doing, what are the hacks up
to?"

They're watching CNN capture the campaign ratings crown.

UPDATE: Fresh Nielsen numbers show Fox News' ratings woes continued over
the weekend. During Saturday night's 8-10 p.m. ET coverage of the
Democrats' South Carolina primary results, Fox News not only got trounced
by CNN among viewers 25-54, but lost to MSNBC as well.
.

Quantcast