Fox 12 features crime, but the other news programs aren't much better. My spouse and I used to watch local news, but we gave up some time ago. After seeing the hundred thousandth "consumer alert," or some cripped dude getting his handicapped van stolen (or returned), or lost (or found) dogs, or some other obligatory "human interest" story, we just gave up.

We just came to accept the fact that consumers have problems, handicapped people get their vehicles stolen and returned, and dogs get lost and found. But we don't need to hear about it every night. If any of that changes, somebody let me know.

I couldn't agree more. Sometimes when we're bored my husband and I watch it just to laugh at the props the reporters hold up during every story. But honestly, I am so sick of seeing the worst kind of people interviewed following the worst kind of crimes, while really important stuff is going on and nobody is talking about it. It's as insidious as the incessant focus on Fox News Channel on the missing girl in Aruba or Lacy Peterson or the runaway bride. They play to the basest impulses in all of us - the rubbernecking, can't-take'the-eyes-off-the-wreck thing. Meanwhile, their viewers are like deer caught in the headlights as the semi bears down.

I agree that Fox 12 "news" exploits viewers' fears and is an example of the worst type of media coverage. However, the fact is that Fox 12 is a for-profit commercial TV station in a very competitive business. I wouldn't blame Fox for doing whatever it can to be successful in its business. Afterall, the others stations are not very different from Fox 12 and will probably eventually imitate it. If Fox 12 ever crosses the increasingly distant line to bad, exploitive "journalism", then consumers can react against Fox 12 and its advertisers.

The real question is, why Fox 12's competitors have not tried to attract Portland's supposedly liberal community with the same attractively-packaged, entertaining, and investigative news reporting. It seems KGW or some other media should be able to tap into the city's progressive base (besides OPB).

As a former news producer in Portland, I can tell you there is barely enough real news in Portland to fill an "A" section, much less an hour. KATU ND Mike Devlin and I used to joke about it during the newscasts. That's why he went to Houston.

So, the folks with the goofy grins at KPTV who can't cut it in the big markets and at the network, stoop to scare tactics that would make ol' TailGunner Joe proud. Roy Cohn too.

All of this is offensive and destructive, true, but wait; there's more! We also have the AWFUL Fox graphics! Yikes! They're constantly zooming in on twirling logos and sound FX from a 13 year old's bad Flash animation. It's so amateurish and garish one has to wonder why they don't invest in some sort of art direction. Surely they could find a community college intern who could come up with something LOTS better than their current, over the edge gee-whiz technology! My eyes hurt.

It is abundantly clear that the profit motive does not and will not bring us the information needed as citizens and comunity members.

The answer: well-funded, independent public media.

Tom Civiletti: "The answer: well-funded, independent public media."

Where does the funding come from? Income tax? TV set tax? Telethon? Medicinal pot sales tax?

And is there such a thing as "independent public media". Is OPB or KBOO truly independent? KBOO obviously panders to its particular listener base. And as OPB becomes more dependent on its donating listeners and corporations, it will naturally be more inclined to keep its coverage the most bland and least offensive/controversial.

Instead of betting on a pipe dream, why not return to reality and consider a commercially-viable plan. Afterall, Comedy Central's Daily Show seems to have created a profitable news show while being informative and entertaining. (Yes, I consider TDS informative because often covers newsworthy stories omitted in the 24/7 "news" channels.)

Fox news is literally the funniest show on TV...if you get the joke. I'm guessing that many people don't understand the sensationalism of the news, or television programming in general, so they sit there getting programmed themselves.

Last night’s episode was pretty typical with a CHILD MOLESTER update and a METH update, followed by a CRIME IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD segment. Are there really that many child molesters, meth addicts and is there really that much crime? I guess I’ll never know, because once Fox news starts to carry a story, I tune it out. It’s not that crime doesn’t happen, or that there aren’t any child molesters or meth addicts, it’s the fact that Fox News takes these segments out of the environment of statistics and reality. Fox News wants you to believe there is a child molester and meth lab in EVERY neighborhood, and the only way you can keep apprised of the situation is by watching Fox News.

Is this reality?

The other huge problem with Fox News, and most cable programming is what the makers of Outfoxed refer to as the “Fox Effect”; if sensationalism works for one network, other networks will follow the trend to maintain their ratings. I see meth stories almost every day in the Oregonian, and to be honest, I have no idea how big of a problem meth is because I regard it as sensationalism. The Fox Effect, by focusing on sensationalism, creates four major problems:

1. Sensationalism detracts from real issues that affect every one of us. For every minute that Fox 12 focuses on meth, they don’t focus on more important issues like Portland’s education crisis or unemployment. These are real stories that don’t require buzz words or flashy graphics; these are stories we would all like to hear more about if someone were to cover them in-depth. On a national level, the Fox News Network has completely ignored serious problems within the Bush administration, the war in Iraq and America’s economic problems.

2. If sensationalism creates ratings, it alters the programming of other affiliates to become more sensationalist themselves. In the end, no one covers real stories, choosing instead to find the next dirty little detail that grips our most primitive attention.

3. It perpetuates an unrealistic view of the world, which, in turn, inspires people to adopt unrealistic perspectives and lifestyles. This is a greater problem than we can imagine until we see a paranoid populace arming themselves, zealously defending their property and endorsing crime bills that have no basis in reality. Should Portland create legislation to deal with meth, or is the problem one that can be handled by existing statutes? Are we all falling prey to the Fox Effect?

4. By creating a distorted view of social problems, it can actually make people care less about social issues. As I said earlier, if Fox News carries a story, I immediately tune it out; I literally have no idea how big of a problem meth is, because I, like many of my friends, don’t follow sensationalism.

Meth and child molestation are simply the local manifestations of Fox programming, but on a national level the network inspires even more insidious fears that sensationalize terrorism and spread hysteria of a nation in the grips of violent revolt from within. From sleeper cells to liberals, Fox is busy everyday inspiring dark anger towards whole segments of our society as well as building ethnocentric views against Muslims and, of course, France. Why do we hate the French again? Oh, that’s right, they didn’t want a military quagmire in Iraq. Sounds logical to me, but if you are one of millions of brain-dead Americans relying on Fox News for your perspective on the world, you might very well think that France has a decidedly anti-American agenda.

I must applaud the Willamette Week for their story and Brian Wagner for submitting this to Blue Oregon. I would love to see Oregon reverse the Fox Effect, and see a drop in the ratings of Fox News 12 for their systematic ignorance about the city and the world we live in. I would like to see Oregon be on the cutting edge of news, and follow Bill Moyer’s example of in-depth analysis of current events. Reality is so much more fascinating than fiction or propaganda, and by raising the bar on everyone’s ability to follow current events, you might actually have the side benefit of educating the populace you are so used to controlling.

Torrid Joe wrote:

to be fair, Fox 12 isn't owned by Fox News; it's owned by Meredith. There is no connection, that I know of, between the national and local news organizations.

TC: Channel 12 news carries stories from Fox News and Fox affiliates.

Norm! wrote:

Tom Civiletti: "The answer: well-funded, independent public media."

Where does the funding come from? Income tax? TV set tax? Telethon? Medicinal pot sales tax?

And is there such a thing as "independent public media". Is OPB or KBOO truly independent? KBOO obviously panders to its particular listener base. And as OPB becomes more dependent on its donating listeners and corporations, it will naturally be more inclined to keep its coverage the most bland and least offensive/controversial.

TC: US income tax collections would be fine with me. I would consider other viable sources as well.

"Independent" as in "independent as possible." The BBC does pretty well, unless international security issues are at stake. KBOO is not bad for a small time local outlet. Cable access TV production is fairly independent of power structures.

I don't find commercial media worthless, but it's undependable. Public altervatives are crucial.

Tom- you make a good point that independent media can only realistically be defined as "independent as possible." While I have problems with the BBC networks after living in the UK for 5 months, I agree that they, like PBS/NPR, seek to remain at a higher plane of responsibility to the story than a Fox 12 or KGW 8 does when commercial considerations dictate coverage.

The reason why I will always support public broadcasting, and vehemently oppose conservative libertarians in their quest to abolish it, is because I don't trust the free market much less in the field of journalism than I do in other matters. If we looked to the free market alone, many sports teams would be unpracticeable--yet we never stop to think why we want them, we just accept that sports teams are a part of our life. I feel the same way about public broadcasting--despite the fact that they are not profit-making machines like network newscasts, they fill a niche which I find essential and expect would otherwise be neglected.

Brian,

Indeed. The free market is great at many things, and wanting in some others. As far as news delivery, commercial outlets have several structural problems.

The customers are more the advertisers and less the viewers. The customer is always right. There are many examples of the editorial-advertising barrier being breached, and the barrier is presently crumbling.

Most outlets are now owned by a few corporations. That reduces diversity and promotes a pro-corporate bias in reporting. Also, there is now a much greater emphasis on profitmaking by network news divisions. Profit was once not as important as prestige, back in the days of Cronkite, Huntley, and Brinkley.

Important news is not entertainment. Commercial news is certainly entertainment. Commercial news is, then, not the important news.

Fear and loathing, sex and crime, disaster and cute animals, jingoism and cheap sentiment, commercial promotion disguised as news and talking points disguised as thought. This is commercial news and not only on Fox Channel Twelve.

Tom Civiletti: "US income tax collections would be fine with me. I would consider other viable sources as well."

US income tax collection is NOT a viable option. Any news tax would be politically impossible. I think even stereotypical tax and spend liberals would have problems with taxes going to some newschannel.

I suspect the only reason PBS and NPR have been able to save some of their tax funding is that PBS has kids and science programming and both news operations have avoided making too many waves.

""Independent" as in "independent as possible." ... KBOO is not bad for a small time local outlet. Cable access TV production is fairly independent of power structures.

"I don't find commercial media worthless, but it's undependable. Public altervatives are crucial."

Again, I'm not sure what you definition of "independent" is. KBOO is not independent nor does it strive to be. It tailors its broadcasts toward its listeners' viewpoints. Although financially independent, most cable public access show do not attempt to show an objective perspective, but the (often strange) viewpoint of the producer(s).

Brian Wagner: "...I feel the same way about public broadcasting--despite the fact that they are not profit-making machines like network newscasts, they fill a niche which I find essential and expect would otherwise be neglected."

I also support OPB and get most of my news from OPB Radio and various internet sites. However, I've never been comfortable with the idea that OPB should receive tax funding -- especially in light of the last state budget crisis.

Tom Civiletti: "...Also, there is now a much greater emphasis on profitmaking by network news divisions. Profit was once not as important as prestige, back in the days of Cronkite, Huntley, and Brinkley."

Profit has always been the motivating factor in broadcasting -- especially in news. Weren't the original news programs prominantly sponsored by corporate advertisers like the Camel News Caravan? Prestige was only as important as long as it didn't get in the way of advertising.

Jeff is correct that deregulation of broadcast media is part of the problem. Local news spits on the public interest.

I'll say only that I disagree with Norm!'s critique of my statements. He might profit from reading some media writing by Solomon, Bagdikian, McChesney, or Alterman.

doretta: "I don't seem to run out of things on my useful list in time to watch Fox News, either the local or the national variety so I'm not tempted to dismiss legitimate issues just because they've picked up on them."

You really should watch Fox News...and then come back to the thread about Fox News and comment on it. It would be so much more relevant than telling me what the Oregonian says about meth or how you get your news.

A lot of people have touched on the point I made, but none put sufficient emphasis on one side of this. In his original, Brian Wagner concluded with a discussion of what local TV news should be: to paraphrase, more in tune with what people "need" and, based on his comments, I would assume that to be a sober, considered take on the news. And, for what it's worth, I agree with the sentiment.

But there's one question here no one is answering: would anyone watch it? People already enjoy the option of watching either FOX News or, say, the Newshour on PBS. I could be wrong here, but assume that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more people watch FOX. I wouldn't argue that this is a good thing, but it is reality. Jeff Alworth's point about "boring" segments comes into play here: you can find serious fodder on TV, both PBS and some of the stodgier cable channels - hell, you could watch C-SPAN - but the thing is, people don't. Moreover, you can't, and shouldn't wish, to compel them to.

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, we're stuck living in the country we've got, complete with all the people in it who, for one reason or another, don't think and believe like progressives.

For those interested, I posted a rambling response to this on my own site (and an ass-covering correction as well). Just to warn you, I come off like a bit of an asshole in the thing, but as I said at the top, this has been coming for a while; the jabs are sharp, but not intended to be disrespectful. While I see the merits in Mr. Wagner's post, I registered a distinct under-current of elitism in it, the notion that people should be provided with information and in a way that's "good for them." As I said above, it's out there and, if people are interested in finding it, they will; Lord knows I have and, I'm guessing most of Blue Oregon's readers have. But that's your choice. Everyone else has a choice as well and TV ratings show that they choose what we all agree is swill. But that's their choice.

Oh, one more thing: the idea of public funding for news stations is fine on paper, but it does subject said programming to the political pressures now afflicting PBS on the national level. Once public funds are involved, the content gets on the table real quick.

Jeff Bull writes:

But there's one question here no one is answering: would anyone watch it? People already enjoy the option of watching either FOX News or, say, the Newshour on PBS. I could be wrong here, but assume that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more people watch FOX."

A quick web search seems to indicate that something like 2.5-3.0 million people watch the NewsHour broadcast. Fox averages .5-1.0 million viewers during prime time. Not completely comparable time windows, and I didn't double check those numbers, but I think the answer is "yes they would, and they are."