Fox & Friends’ Extraordinary Coverage of the Killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki
At 4:15 Pacific time this morning, I turned on the TV to watch Fox & Friends. Immediately, I heard the Fox-News-alert “bing” and Iearned that U.S. drones had killed Anwar Al-Awlaki. As Steve Doocy noted, Fox News’ K.T. McFarlane had earlier explained why this was more important than the killing of Usama bin Laden. The reason was because bin Laden had largely been isolated and unable to direct many terror attacks. Meanwhile, Awlaki was not so isolated and had recently directed more attacks than bin Laden. Further, he was younger, more internet savvy, and seemed to represent the future of al Qaeda.
For the remaining hour and 45 minutes of the show, the hosts interviewed Gen. Tom McInerny, Gen. Jack Keane, Judith Miller, Geraldo Rivera and others. All provided impressive information and insights about Awlaki. Fox & Friends also provided a report from correspondent Greg Palkot, who relayed some information from a secret source in Yemen. The show provided another report from correspondent Jennifer Griffin, who relayed information from an anonymous source in the Pentagon.
I am near certain that the vast majority of the above correspondents and guests were not scheduled to appear on the show this morning. The reason I believe that—and the reason I was awake so early in this morning—is that I was one of the guests scheduled for this morning’s show. The plan was for me to discuss some of my media research at the 5:45am (Pacific) time slot. However, just before 5:00am, Samantha, one of the producers at Fox & Friends called to tell me I’d be bumped from the show. After thanking her for the call, I started to make small talk, but then she interrupted me. “I’m sorry,” she said, “I gotta call all the other guests to tell them they’re also canceled.”
Between 4:15 and 5:30, while Fox was extensively covering the Awlaki killing, I frequently flipped channels to CNN and MSNBC. The latter outlets did not mention Awlaki at all. They were so silent about the topic that I even wondered if Fox had been fooled into reporting a false rumor. Finally, at 5:30 one of CNN’s international correspondents noted the Awlaki killing. That report lasted about five minutes. I saw nothing more on CNN until it began a new show at 6:00. MSNBC’s Morning Joe reported nothing about the killing. Instead it featured a long segment about Chris Christie being fat and why voters should consider that important. It also ran an interview with Gloria Estafan, which as best I could tell, was part of a longer segment about how funding for art and music education is being cut from schools.
Unlike the other news shows, Fox was able to call an “audible.” It canceled its planned segments, quickly called some contributors and guests, and provided some remarkable and extraordinary coverage of Awlaki.
Fox’s nimbleness, I believe, is part of the reason its audience numbers are about three times CNN’s and about two-and-a-half times MSNBC’s.
I would love to believe that Fox’s superior audience numbers are due to deep institutional reasons—that the American people do not want their news to be as biased leftward as the mainstream media presents it, and that the mainstream media has left open a market niche, which if not filled by Fox, would be filled by some other entity.
However, this morning’s coverage demonstrates that Fox’s success is partly due superior talent—some hardworking producers who were quickly able to recruit some experts to appear on camera and some forward-thinking executives who had earlier decided it was a good idea to establish relationships those experts.
This is actually bad news for those of us who’d like to see the media become less liberal.
The success of Fox seems partly due to idiosyncratic reasons—that it does not represent an inevitable trend for the media to become less liberal. If Fox loses its superior talent—say because Roger Ailes retires—I fear the overall slant of the media could easily move back toward the left.
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: Fox & Friends’ Extraordinary Coverage of the Killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki
Superior talent is always going to gravitate toward those places where talent is recognized and rewarded, both monetarily and professionally. How do you think the real journalists still working at NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC felt knowing that whatever they reported about this event would be put behind Gloria Estefan?
I have to think that Roger Ailes has thought his succession plan out and will be followed by people who think the same way.
Dec '10
Re: Fox & Friends’ Extraordinary Coverage of the Killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki
So, Fox is able to nimbly reschedule guests to fit the events of the hour. I fail to see how this is bad news for those who would like to see less bias in reporting. Is there some evidence that people can't have more than one reason to watch Fox?
Mar '11
Re: Fox & Friends’ Extraordinary Coverage of the Killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki
I watch Fox news mostly because of their bias to the right. The good reporting is a bonus.
In the UK, the BBC is biased way to the left, and is much better than Fox news - kinda unfortunate.
So quality and bias are somewhat uncorrelated, I think.
May '11
Re: Fox & Friends’ Extraordinary Coverage of the Killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki
I agree with your analysis but I am hopeful that the media bias will become more centrist and conservative over time. Breitbart has certainly recruited quite a few young conservative journalists.
May '10
Re: Fox & Friends’ Extraordinary Coverage of the Killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki
You've got to be kidding me. If you watch a news network that reports, in the aftermath of a strike on an accused terrorist, that the target, an obscure figure who has never successfully carried out an attack, was "more important than the killing of Usama bin Laden," the mastermind of 9/11 and leader of Al Qaeda for more than a decade, what you've seen is an absurd instance of Obama Administration boosterism, not impressive news coverage.
I mean, seriously. Can anyone earnestly argue that Al-Awlaki was a more important figure than Bin Laden? If so, they must get all their information from Fox News, because news organizations and sources who actually know anything about the man understand that, whatever one thinks of him, he is much, much, much less important than Bin Laden.
Re: Fox & Friends’ Extraordinary Coverage of the Killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki
Conor Friedersdorf: You've got to be kidding me. If you watch a news network that reports, in the aftermath of a strike on an accused terrorist, that the target, an obscure figure who has never successfully carried out an attack, was "more important than the killing of Usama bin Laden," the mastermind of 9/11 and leader of Al Qaeda for more than a decade, ...
I mean, seriously. Can anyone earnestly argue that Al-Awlaki was a more important figure than Bin Laden? If so, they must get all their information from Fox News, because news organizations and sources who actually know anything about the man understand that ... he is much, much, much less important ...
Well, neither al-Awlaki nor Osama "carried out" any attack, to be technical. Planning is another thing.
In another thread I'm arguing that the extra-judicial nature of al-Awlaki's killing is troublesome, but this is a fairly easy case to make. OBL hadn't done anything in years. He couldn't move or communicate. Al-Awlaki was very active working with lone wolf types (eg Hasan).
The OBL hit was more about morale. This was more operational.
Nov '10
Re: Fox & Friends’ Extraordinary Coverage of the Killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki
I believe the man was involved in the planned Christmas airline bombing a couple years ago and has been directly linked to the Ft. Hood shooting which took place just up the road from me here in Texas. I'd say he was an important figure. Maybe saying he was more important than OBL is a bit of hyperbole, but within the technical context of what now seems to be known about Bin Laden's time in hiding, al-Awlaki sure seems more involved in the kind of relatively low intensity, compared to the scope of 9/11, terrorist attacks we can reasonably assume will only intensify in the future.
I say good riddance. Hyperbole or not.
Sep '10
Re: Fox & Friends’ Extraordinary Coverage of the Killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki
Fox News has a better product in many ways, only one of which is quality of reporting. No lead lasts forever, and it's possible that other news outlets will improve their game and provide real competition to Fox, but I think liberal activism will always work against commercial success, since by definition if you're pushing an agenda, other considerations such as what an audience might actually want to watch will always to some extent be sacrificed to the cause.
As is many other fields, what we see as a rightwards bias is largely a bias towards decentralization, deregulation, and freedom, rather than a political agenda per se. And all those things work well in free markets. All we need is to protect against the likes of the Fairness Doctrine and we'll do just fine in the media.
Edited on Sep 30, 2011 at 2:03pmRe: Fox & Friends’ Extraordinary Coverage of the Killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki
Whoa, Timmy!
Could you answer one question? What were you doing up at 4:15? What are you trying to do, make every other father in America look like a slouch?
Aug '10
Re: Fox & Friends’ Extraordinary Coverage of the Killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki
Rachel Maddow , Ron Paul , the ACLU , Chaz Bono , and Joe Biden were all against this . When asked later , Vice President Biden corrected his position by saying " I was not calling AlAwlaki a barbarian , I was saying All likey a barbeque." And then invited the press corps to an impromptu party at Blair House where four cabs showed up laden with pizzas. ...after some time on the gas grill, the Veep had rendered the pizzas into inedible burnt crusts... He then announced that " No pictures this time either ! But here is what he looks like now. " yum
Jul '10
Re: Fox & Friends’ Extraordinary Coverage of the Killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Conor Friedersdorf:
I mean, seriously. Can anyone earnestly argue that Al-Awlaki was a more important figure than Bin Laden? If so, they must get all their information from Fox News, because news organizations and sources who actually know anything about the man understand that ... he is much, much, much less important ...
In another thread I'm arguing that the extra-judicial nature of al-Awlaki's killing is troublesome, but this is a fairly easy case to make. OBL hadn't done anything in years. He couldn't move or communicate. Al-Awlaki was very active working with lone wolf types (eg Hasan).
The OBL hit was more about morale. This was more operational. · Sep 30 at 1:12pm
The moral is to the physical as three to one.
-Napoleon
The asymmetrical nature of this continuing conflict is awfully good evidence of that dictum. Conor's right.
Apr '11
Re: Fox & Friends’ Extraordinary Coverage of the Killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki
I've seen all of the news networks act sluggish on varying stories, and I'm not sure what causes it. It does seem strange that Morning Joe couldn't fit time into their massively repetitive schedule and round table discussions. I had to give up on that show after viewing too many duds. Too bad as I think they had something going for a while (circa 2009). My guess is that MSNBC received too many complaints saying they had too many "right wing" guests on. Well, if, so, they must have been the interesting ones that made the show worth watching, because it's pretty pitiful nowadays.
Mar '11
Re: Fox & Friends’ Extraordinary Coverage of the Killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki
The flaw in your theory rests on the assumption that these competing networks had a desire to promote this news. Let us not forget our history:
October 19, 2001 Pravda on the Hudson hails, "a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West"
There was a time when mainstream media outlets were cheering this madman, our gentle Iman Al-Awlaki. Drawing attention to their moral grotesquery is not exactly in their interests.