By now we all know that on the day Romney planned to revamp his campaign (a story picked up and covered by major broadcast news outlets — did they have nothing better to cover? why are they covering a campaign strategy change?), a video leaked wherein Romney said he was unconcerned with winning the votes of 47% of the population who are dependent on the government.
Coming off of my fact-posts, I turn to Fox and Jon Stewart to discuss how an entire network, which Stewart labels Romney’s “campaign headquarters,” failed to actually explain how 47% was an accurate comment and successively produced broad-sweeping spin-comments about how Romney was telling the truth and was right.
Is it it enough for major news networks and reporters to just say a statement is correct? Is there a term for blind-support over journalism? One Fox and Friends talking head claimed we “have become an entitlement nation,” where Jon Stewart goes to show that part of those people “dependent” on the government and included in the statistic are those receiving Medicare/Medicaid.
Jon Stewart is hilarious, but his last clip (posted below) actually does math, like the WSJ article I linked to earlier, going for fact rather than factitious spin statements or going for standard attacks. Instead of analyzing the comment, Fox deflected and blamed the man who posted the video, as well as the site (Mother Jones), as well as the 47 percenters. When enough airtime had been spent on deflection, Fox manipulated Romney’s words and said what they thought he must have meant, and then finally they retaliated by posting old-footage of an Obama gaffe.
Their response as a broadcast news organization was thus deflection, manipulation, support, and retaliation – rather than mere fact gathering. How is that good journalism?