Blurring the Lines of the Public vs. the Market Audience

The image above is provided by the liberal blog ThinkProgress and the short, cranky article that dissects it can be found here. If you're not familiar with the Treyvon Martin story, the confirmed facts of the case be found here. In a nutshell, a 17 year-old, unarmed African American boy was shot by 28 year-old white man named George Zimmerman. So far, Zimmerman's motive is unclear, but a 911 recorded conversation just before the shooting revealed that Zimmerman followed him unnecessarily and reported that Martin looked "like he's up to no good, on drugs or something." Martin had no criminal record to date.

Above, ThinkProgress charts the amount of news coverage each of the three major news networks allotted to this story. To only report on the development of this story once is uhm, outrageous. Here, the liberal blog Wonkette eviscerates Fox News for their negligence, so if you're into that sort of thing, you'll enjoy their take down of the outlet they describe as a "steady stream of artlessly jingoistic vomit, spewing forth from helmet-headed hairspray sacks who move their lips while reading important reports on hurricanes and other outrages against Heartland (= white, irrespective of actual location) America." But it's easy to pick on Fox News.

Instead, I'd like to ask whether Fox News' decision to neglect this story reflects their view of their audience as a public or a market. Usually, stories of senseless violence are the sort of thing the public audience thinks it deserves to know about. Coupled with the issue of race, the Martin story is definitely the stuff of evening prime time news. Why did Fox ignore it? Were they worried about offending members of their white audience who sympathize with Zimmerman's fear of blacks? It strikes me that Fox could have still reported the story and weighed in on the issue by coming to the defense of Zimmerman. What's going on here?

Is Fox News too liberal?

If you're having the same reaction I am right now, namely, "whaaaa?," hang in there.

Rick Santorum complained recently that Fox News is constantly "shilling" for the "liberal" Mitt Romney on their daytime programming, leaving poor ol' Rick out in the cold. Somewhat surprisingly (to myself at least), Fox jumped up to defend their coverage of the candidates.

Video and commentary continue after the jump.

Prioritizing the News

                  A quick look at the news will tell you that there are a lot of things that go on in the world that need our attention.  Between the conflicts in Syria, the Republican primaries and the daily issues that crop up we have quite a bit going on.  That's why it baffles me when certain news stories get coverage to certain levels and others struggle to catch the eye of the media.  I visited multiple news sights while writing this entry and I am surprised to see how some events can barely get a quality amount of coverage.  It's surprising that on a day in which the US has launched new sanctions on Iran and people are getting killed in Syria that the biggest picture on MSNBC's website is of Clint Eastwood and talks about his Super bowl commercial's political effect.  Really? Is this the type of journalism we need? At this point is the media still helping us or hindering our access to more valuable information?
                 Honestly, much of this content comes from what we have been discussing in class and about the role of the media.  The media can be a great resource but, they can also be used to hide things and keep us in the dark by burying news stories.  This is the inevitable issue with the media and it's something we have yet to figure out how to correct. Blogs and social media do a good job measuring reaction to news stories but they are as mainstream as CNN, FOX and MSNBC.  With these major channels burying certain stories how do we expect people to get the full picture?  When figuring out which stories should be reported in which order in my opinion it goes without saying that issues of politics, human rights and the environment are more important than analysis of a Super bowl commercial.
                Ultimately, we are faced with the dilemma of searching out quality news (which most Americans wouldn't do because we like having our news brought to us) or continue being fed the same news which is so synthesized and broken down by so many analysts and experts sometimes it can lose sight of the main point. This is not an issue we can easily answer and part of the reason we don't know what's going on in the world is because the vast amount of world news for us goes unreported and lost.

"I Don't Think That Would Work"

Bret Baier, Fox News Host, On Newt Gingrich’s Debate
Request: ‘I Don’t Think That Would Work’

Our average candidate typically desires ample media coverage and debate time not
only to promote their pleasantly positive promises and positions, but also to
bash the opponent’s “raison d’etre.” Interestingly, Gingrich announced that he “wouldn’t agree to a debate with President Barack Obama if a journalist was the moderator.” How can an iconic figure and potential presidential candidate pass down on his opportunity to violently beat
the incumbent president’s “failures and misfortunes?” Bret Baier, Fox News Host
and presidential debate moderator commented that Gingrich’s idea of would not
work and would be quite boring.
Why exactly would Gingrich’s hope- to not face Obama in a debate- be so unrealistic? There are two clear reasons. The first is quite simple; an election without debates would certainly lack a certain luster that an audience expects. Election debates are like snuff films for the elite,
powerful, and “educated.” They provide the opportunity for each candidate to
legally insult and destroy the persona of another until there is nothing left.
The second reason is more important than, yet not as entertaining as, the first.
Journalist moderated debates get these haughty political candidates off of
their well-practiced and “programmed responses.” In this sense, the journalists
at these debates act as watchdogs for the audience as they are able to ask
difficult and controversial questions, forcing the candidates to think for themselves
without the help of a teleprompter or professional speech writer. Additionally,
these journalist moderated debates provide a bit of “neutral”, real-time news
to shine through the muck of the wonderful “infotainment.”
So even if Newt Gingrich did become the Republican candidate (but we know he will
not) and rejected a public debate against Obama, he would be harassed and embarrassed
by Baier’s and others’ statement of “I don’t think that would work.”