Voting with the remote

Jacob Weisberg in Newsweek: "Any news organization that took its responsibilities seriously would take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity. At Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence" that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored...

Fox's model has invaded the bloodstream of the American media. By showing that ideologically distorted news can drive ratings, Ailes has provoked his rivals at CNN and MSNBC to develop a variety of populist and ideological takes on the news. In this way, Fox hasn't just corrupted its own coverage. Its example has made all of cable news unpleasant and unreliable... A boycott would make Ailes too happy, so let's try just ignoring Fox, shall we?"

I agree that the best strategy is to ignore. No one wants to compromise free speech -- everyone in the US should be able to say whatever they want. But there's no law that says the rest of us have to pay attention. If Glenn Beck wants to rant endlessly that's his business, but there's no obligation the rest of us have to tune in every day. We need a movement to urge people to vote with their remotes, to choose programming that appeals to the better parts of our nature instead of the lowest common denominators. I don't think this is only FOX, by the way -- by playing into the narrative, MSNBC is reinforcing the problems. I don't think the insipid coverage of CNN is the solution, necessarily. I think there's a place for intelligent, thoughtful news that engages viewers and acknowledges complex realities (I think of the News Hour, but there are other examples as well -- Amanpour also does a good job) ... we need to move past the era of the commentariat and get back to hard news. It's more expensive to produce, yes, but in the end it will be more compelling, and much healthier for our nation.