To what extent is Fox News produced to fulfil the needs of a particular audience?

Fiske said “news is a commodity which requires an audience.”

Over all viewing figures for news and current affairs remain lower than they were in 1984. yet Fox news is breaking the trend in America with viewing figures on the rise. Perhaps they have already discovered what the media group 3WE2000 discovered “We’re past the days of giving audiences what they should have, it’s about giving them what they want.” Of course the report was referring to the fall in BBC figures which it regarded as a consequence of adhering too rigidly to the Reithian principles of information first entertainment last.

In 2003 following on from the war in Iraq, Fox was the most watched news channel in the US. It was even the preferred network of the American forces. Yet Fox is well known as a partisan organisation; having almost single-handedly got George Bush elected in 2000 and again in ’04. It is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who, with his multi-media empire reaches ¾ of the world’s population, this news channel in particular embodies and promotes his values, his politics and his attitudes. Fervently pro-Bush, pro-war, anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality and actively promoting American superiority in every one of the world’s arenas, this channel lives up to Martin Bell’s criticism of rolling news channels: “defined by F-words… their nature too often is to be feverish, frenzied, frantic, frail, false and fallible.”

Its grotesquely ironic tag lines ‘Fair and Balanced’ and ‘We report, You Decide’ which purport to be impartial and transparent are little more than a cover for right wing polemic, where a reporter like Bill O’Reilly can get away with routinely winding up and verbally brow-beating his interviewees and telling them to ‘shut up’ so frequently that it has become a joke.

Who then is Fox’s audience? Sadly they are not just the ill-informed, uneducated, conservatives afraid of anything which might disrupt their perfect little, small-town American lives, there are a good number of white, middle-class ordinary, even reasonably intelligent, Americans who go to Fox first for their news. Again sadly this is not all Fox’s own doing; the need to give equal time in the TV medium for opposing points of view was eliminated decades ago in the Reagan era.

In a country of diverse ethnic and social elements Fox unites in a common patriotism, a shared fear and a mutual support for those with similar views. Their mix of lively, loud and sarcastic entertaining commentary and opinion masquerading as news is appealing to those who feel the need to be told what to think.

So the question remains then, are they fulfilling the needs of their audience or constructing the audience around what they are delivering? Whatever the answer it’s working and other American networks are now leaping onto the bandwagon to copy their style.

Textual analysis and TV News – What examples can you use to support various themes in exam questions?

Transparency – the studio or the way the news is presented as coming to the viewer without being censored!

  • Glass e.g. BBC and opaque glass walls behind presenters or on Look East where the window behind looks out on the Norwich Castle Mall Shopping Centre, or BBC Breakfast which looks across the Thames…
  • Blue / green screens, sometimes even the floor e.g. ITV CGI’s projected on floor and walls e.g. during the Iraq war when there was a map of the region and the presenter stood in the middle of it explaining…
  • Use of outside broadcast to increase believability factor even when there’s nothing going on e.g. the shot of the aeroplane con trail and the presenter saying ‘even if that’s not his plane…’ (See tape with TWTM and NN) i.e. completely pointless! Or the footage of the Charles Kennedy story at the closed shop!
  • Perhaps easier to appear transparent now with so much amateur video or even camera phone footage available now e.g. first from 9/11 then from the Tsunami and more recently the London Bombings.
  • But the fact that Michael Buerk’s Ethiopian Famine Story would never have got to our screens had it not been for the lack of other international or important home news at that time, shows how easy it is to miss a story of such horrid significance or scale.
  • The fact that the government criticised the BBC for its anti-war stance over the Falklands or even more recently over the Iraq war and of course the now infamous 45 minute dossier, when the BBC was again hauled over the coals and punished for its ‘daring challenge’ to the government, again indicates that there is a preferred view or reading which is dictated by the current ideology of the country.
  • The demonisation of Saddam Hussein (as per Propp’s categories of characters) as akin to Hitler and the assumption that the viewing public must agree with that assessment gives no thought for those who might not see things that way; or that the terrorists are always Muslim nowadays and Islam has become a threat, no wonder that ethnic minorities are turning off in droves.
  • Editing too suggests links and attitudes by the privileged camera angles for some or the amount of time given to others.
  • Transparency always fails as soon as something goes wrong with the technology!
  • The number of different segments which make up any one story: live interviews, video, archive, expert comment, CGI etc. all increases the appearance of ‘realism’ or transparency.

Audience – things done to gain, retain or increase an audience:

  • Younger better looking presenters e.g. Fiona Bruce, Kirsty Young, Natasha Koplinski, also remember the new face of Newsnight Emily Maitlis and her comment that television is a ‘lookist industry and people need to get over that fact’. (Guardian March 06)
  • Representatives of ethnic groups e.g. Krishnan Guru Murthy Channel 4
  • Mise en scene of studios and use made of it e.g. Channel 5 multi-coloured, two-level, young presenter, walking around
  • Language e.g. ‘Hi and welcome’ Newsround, the use of the personal ‘you’ and the invitation to re-join next time: ‘Join us again won’t you,’ T McD

Ratings

Celebrity and Tabloidisation of news