Cable Wars in the US: Fox News vs MSNBC - Term Paper Example

? CABLE WARS, FOX NEWS VS MSNBC CABLE WARS, FOX NEWS VS MSNBC Introduction In recent times, the media has been so powerful that it is often regard by many as the fourth arm of government. This means that next to the Executive, Judiciary and the Legislature, the Media is the next most powerful agency of governance (Sparks, 2007). Whereas this line of argument is legally not correct, there are some logical and conceptual bases for it. Indeed, the media has grown so popular to control how things are done, including governance that it is simply not possible for anyone to disregard the power of the media in making and unmaking a country. There are actually facts and history of how media reportage influenced several nationwide actions and decisions, including the infamous civil war in Rwanda, which was believed to have started as an aftermath of a journalist’s submission on air (Schudson, 2002). In the United States and other advanced countries, the kind of media attention and hype given to politicians have said to go a long way in affecting their political carries greatly. A very popular example can be cited with the role the media played in the election of the first Black person to the position of the president of the United States of America, in the person of Barack Obama. Because of the increasingly noticeable influence of the media, there seem to be a continuous urge among most media houses to be the most noted and post popular when it comes to who has the highest following and thus most influential impact on society. This has created what has come to be known as the cable war. History of Cable News In the United States, Cable news refers to television stations that are dedicated purposely for news broadcast (Shen, 2009). Not until the 1980s, not much was known of media houses in the popularization of news broadcast as a full time journalistic business. But from the early 1980s, the pace set by early television stations that became predominantly focused on news broadcast such as Cable News Network (CNN), brought about the term in its most used sense. With time, there became a more centralized approach to cable news when some television stations started narrowing their focus or definition of news. This means that instead of focusing on news as a general term, there became cable news stations that would look into issues like only business or sports as their specialized area of news broadcast (Sparks, 2007). Apart from CNN, which came in 1980, other equally reputable cable news stations or networks followed such as Financial News Network, which came about in 1981, CNN2 in 1982, and CNBC, which was formed in 1989. It was later that other names suffered, that also came to be considered as powerhouses in cable news stations such as Fox News Channel, MSNBC and ESPNews. Among those who would later come to undertake centralized cable news services were Fox Business Network and Bloomberg Television, which focused predominantly on finance, ESPN, which focused on sports, and The Weather Channel, which does weather news. Today, hardly can anyone talk of cable news without mentioning Al Jazeera America. If the history of the development of cable news is anything to go by, one would say that there remains a bright and competitive future for the industry with more faces to surface with time (Ness, 2006). The Concept of Cable War According to media professor Lance Strate, the issue of cable war between Fox News and MSNBC is more of an ideological war rather than a chaotic media war (Schudson, 2002). What this means is that the two media platforms refuse to agree on the same level with it comes to most aspects of political and editorial contents. The height of the war or rivalry was however experienced in the build up to the 2012 General Elections between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney. Between Fox News and MSNBC, Robbins (2012) sees what was a deliberate attempt to take opposing and biased stands that seemed to favor one political divide against the other. The same source continues to note that the major reason behind these forms of cable wars is not necessarily because the media houses want to be on each other’s neck but because they realize that given the democratic political environment in the United States, they could each take advantage of the divided political stage to have as huge a number of following as possible. What is more, there seem to be a kind of political idolatry that is backed by the fact that when one belongs to one side of the political divide, the fellow sees everything about his party as right and everything about the other party as wrong. This way, once any cable news takes one side, there is the guarantee that there will be audience who would be more than audience into becoming worshippers (Freedman, 2009). Between the two however, it has been said that it was Fox News who first took a clear stand for the Republicans and knowing that any form of media competition against CNN would not be possible, MSNBC decided to respond to Fox News by taking the Democrat side (Roberts, 2013). Cover Ratings and Statistics As noted above, the ideological war that started between Fox News and MSNBC had some level of tactical masterminding that was aimed at getting enough viewers for both sides of the house. Quite not surprising, there are ratings and surveys that have showed that these two networks have indeed had higher listenership since the cable war between them became intense. But clearly in every contest or battle, one prevails over the other. According to Pew’s latest study there are Fox News viewers who watch MSNBC and MSNBC viewers who watch Fox News (Morrison, 2013). The specific quantification was however given as a third of people watching MSNBC that also watched Fox News. A good number of these also watch other television stations outside of the war such as CNN. With reference to Fox News viewers however, only 28% of them also watch MSNBC. By implication, the commitment among Fox News viewers in remaining loyal to the station against MSNBC is higher than that which exists among viewers of MSNBC against Fox News (Morrison, 2013). This is because whereas only 28% of viewer of Fox News watches MSNBC, as many as 44% of viewers of Fox News also watch CNN, notes Morrison. In totality however, Fox News is said to have more viewers than MSNBC because Fox News currently possess 18% of all American viewers, whiles MSNBC has 14% of the same population. Morrison (2013) further notes that a major reason for Fox News overtaking MSNBC is the fact that most MSNBC viewers do not watch most of the scheduled programs of the station, even though viewer of Fox News does. In the diagram below, there is a graphical representation of the ratings and statistics between the two stations. Source: Morrison (2013). Demographics and its effect on the news In a recent study, Roberts (2013) focused on the demographic patterns of cable news following and how this impacts on the cable war that currently exists between Fox News and MSNBC. The study was even expanded to include the impact of demographics on the larger cable news following. In the study, it was first established that in terms of gender, there are more male followers of cable news as there are for females. This could partly be due to the fact that there are more males in mainstream politics as there are females (Robbins, 2012). As the cable war that existed between Fox News and MSNBC took a political toll, it was naturally expected that this would have an effect on the listenership of the two cable stations, causing them to have more and more following. What is more, the research findings showed that more Whites were followers of cable news as against Blacks. On this score, Fox News, which was biased towards the Republican party, and the Republican party, which was perceived to have more White following as against Black following in the 2008 and 2012 elections could be the cause of Fox News’ higher viewership as against MSNBC. This indeed gives a maximum justification of the indication that the demographic trend that exists in a given broadcast setting can largely affect the way and manner in which the people would fall to the following of one form of cable news station or the other. For stations that want to be giants in the cable news war therefore, it is important that they maximize the impact of the demographic variables to their advantage. Merits of Cable War Experts have said that where the cable wars do not cross the lines of ethical considerations, they may only be considered as healthy competitions that are there to serve as internal checks and balance for the various cable houses involved. Indeed, the presence of competition gives people an increased urge for put their own houses in order, knowing that while they go to sleep their competitors are also well awake finding ways of coming up top (Shen, 2009). commonly therefore, media houses that have commonly had a tag of belonging to a cable war such as exists between Fox News and MSNBC creates an urge for there to be internal growth and development programs that focus on the creation of competitive advantage to gain the most number of viewers. Having said this, it is very important to bring in the point that through the surveys and statistics conducted above, there are several viewers of Fox News who also view MSNBC. At the same time, there are viewers of MSNBC who view Fox News. The implication of this to the cable war is that when one media house is really able to work around its ways and put its house in order, it would become the preferred viewing destination of as many audiences as possible. It would not necessarily have to be whether the audience belongs to a political side that the media house favors or not. If for nothing at all, there continues to be several people that hold a neutral political view in the United States. Such media war therefore helps the media houses themselves to be weary of their actions and strategies, ensuring that they win competitive advantages. Another merit associated with the cable war is that it creates a room for audience to demand quality and receive it as such. This is because the audience or the viewer is always the end receiver of the inputs of the stations. Meanwhile, it has been said that the competitions ensure that the media houses put in much effort in their dealings. In the eventual while, viewers experience changes in what they view and hear on television because on a constant basis, they see changes in the quality and style of presentation that is aimed at improving the media practice. With this said the need to establish that the cable news has so much influence on what viewers receive from them is important. This is because in most cases, the thoughts, ideas and actions of member of the public is greatly influenced by the kind of information they receive from the media. In often cases, most people consider the first side of news reports that take from these media houses to be the holistic truth. In effect, if there is competition that would ensure that their media reportage, cable news networks are forced to offer nothing but the best to their audience, it becomes a step in the right direction for ensuring that the public becomes well informed public. In recent times, the role of the media as the driving force of public decisions has been investigated in several quarters of studies (Ness, 2006). What this means is that most actions taken by people, especially political actions is influenced by what they hear from media houses. The more quality the information, the more quality and appropriate their decisions would also be. Negative Aspects of Cable War Regardless of the merits that are discussed above, some other experts in media practice have had a cause to be worried about the negative aspects of the media war. Generally, one trend of cable war practice that has been condemned is the bias approach that most of these media houses engaged in cable war, including Fox News and MSNBC engage in. in one report, it was noticed that Fox News is generally in favor of the Republican Party, while MSNBC is in favor of the Democrat Party (Freedman, 2009). In this regard, the temptation that more attention will be given to parties that the cable houses favor is higher. Even though the news they present about their opponents may not be necessarily false or untrue, it is worrisome that they cannot guarantee the public of a 50-50 report. Indeed, a realization that the viewership of some of these media houses is not undertaken by only people engaged in political debate should be a major reason for this practice to stop. It was advised that if CNN, which is generally well balanced and neutral media house continues to have the highest viewership, then it means that it should not political unbiased alone for media houses to feel that they would sufficient listenership. The aspect of cable war that makes it more lucrative for media houses to be the first to break particular news has also been said to have negative effects in the preparation of news reportage. Often times, the rush to break news take a duty of prudent journalistic practice, which is backed by sufficient investigations in the authenticity of news away from these rush reports. Conclusions and Recommendation From the discussions so far, cable war cannot be condemned as totally being a negative thing. As far as there are positive aspects of it in the form of the healthy competition it creates among media houses, leading to the improvement of services that the media houses give to the public, it can be said that the cable wars may not be totally abominable. With this said caution will be created on some of the impact of cable war on strict and laid down journalistic practices. It is very disheartening to hear of reports of unwarranted journalistic practice, all in the name of competing on who was first to break what news. The situation where there has also been media or cable worshiping for the sake of drawing public sympathy and attention would also be condemned. Into the future, both Fox News and MSNBC can have their independent standards that is not determined or influenced by what one does or what one does not do. As much as it is glorifying for one of these media houses to be associated as the people’s house, it is important that this will not be a reason that the need for the public to be fed with dynamic journalistic practice and innovative cable services to cease because none of these two media institutions would come out with ingenuity but will be working, looking over the shoulders of the other. What is more, it is important that sufficient public education will go on among audience of the various media houses so that they would know the best and right variables to look out for when deciding on the choices of listenership to make. This is a very important recommendation that will ensure that audience hold media houses accountable for the best of services. References Freedman, D. (2009). 'Smooth Operator?' The propaganda model and moments of crisis. Westminster Papers In Communication & Culture, 6(2), 59-72 Morrison S. (2013). Fox News Viewers Also Watch MSNBC, Study Says. Accessed November 27, 2013 from http://www.thewrap.com/fox-news-viewers-also-watch-msnbc-study-says/ Ness, S. (2006). The law of unintended consequences. Federal Communications Law Journal, 58(3), 531-538. Robbins, J. (2012). The 1996 Telecommunications Act. Federal Communications Law Journal 58 (3), 559-569. Roberts, B. (2013). The greatest story never told: How the 1996 Telecommunications Act helped to transform cable’s future. Federal Communications Law Journal 58 (3), 571-580. Schudson, M. (2002). The news media as political institutions. Annual Review of Political Science 5, 249-269. Shen, F. (2009). An economic theory of political communication effects: How the economy conditions political learning. Communication Theory (10503293), 19(4), 374-396. Sparks, C. (2007). Extending and refining the propaganda model. Westminster Papers In Communication & Culture, 4(2), 68-84. Read More