Fox News: Boycott or Not?

Photo used under Creative Commons license by Flickr user <a href="">Aaron Bassett</a>.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

As David pointed out in his Politics Daily column Wednesday about the feud between Fox News and the White House, “Fox is just not worth a game of chicken.” I would go one step further and suggest that, for all of its obvious flaws, Fox and its out-sized viewership are still very worth Obama’s time.

Following statements by White House Communications Director Anita Dunn describing Fox as “opinion journalism masquerading as news,” media watchdogs and left-wing pressure groups have turned up the heat on the network.  Yesterday, Media Matters sent around a press release drawing attention to Fox’s use of outdated or dubious polls that suggested its audience is as balanced as its coverage famously claims to be. MoveOn is urging Democratic lawmakers to boycott Fox News.

The attention is not unwarranted. Dunn was merely voicing what every Daily Show viewer has known for years. The fastidious fact-checkers at Media Matters caught Fox News playing up last year’s biennial news consumption survey from the Pew Research Center while ignoring its less favorable but more recent media attitudes survey and called out political analyst Dick Morris for quoted some unbelievable numbers on air.

A boycott, however, is the wrong kind of attention. The White House and MoveOn can call Fox News’ coverage whatever they want: opinion journalism, partisan hackery or outright lies—all labels which have applied in the past. That’s not cause enough for the Democrats to ignore Fox News and the millions of voters who watch it.

There is no denying the conservative bent of both the network’s coverage and audience but it is also important for lawmakers and the White House not to forget that there is still sizable minority of self-described Democrats and Independents who tune into Fox News. As Media Matters notes, this section of the viewing audience is smaller than Fox claims—regardless, it is still too large to overlook. In its argument against disengaging with Fox, The Economist noted Ben Pershing’s observation about the network’s audience: “Maybe they’re mostly ‘right-leaning’ but that doesn’t mean they’re 100 percent unpersuadable.”

Obama and Democratic lawmakers need to be on the network interacting with Fox anchors (perhaps using some well-calibrated “dismissive humor,” as David suggests) and the swing voters who are influenced by their unfair and unbalanced reporting. Like it or not, Fox News still matters. 


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend