On the EDge: Fox News’ family feud

March 19, 2018 Utah Channel 3

OPINION — They’re drawing swords at Fox News and, quite frankly, it couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.

The charlatans who have seized the respectability of news reporting and substituted it with grievous bloviators and hucksters will soon be called upon to throw a bucket or two of cold water on the beef between Shephard Smith, a credible and experienced newsman, and Sean Hannity, a credible and experienced construction worker who somehow transitioned from swinging a hammer to slinging alarmist, conspiracy theory-based nonsense on an international platform at the cable news network. Somehow, he has wormed his way into the Trump administration, earning a special place at the right hand of the president, who, we are told, often consults him on important matters if his buddies at Fox and Friends are too busy to take his call.

For years, Hannity has insisted that he is not a journalist, that he is a commentator, an opinion guy, not a reporter. He said as much when he posted a tweet saying: “I’m not a journalist jackass. I’m a talk host.” That’s a good thing because his experience lends itself better to framing houses than framing a good, solid news story. Still, his blue collar assessments appealed to enough of an audience to allow him to displace a beleaguered Rush Limbaugh, the former king of conservative talk show hosts, who has since become a caricature of his old self. Hannity also outlasted Bill O’Reilly, a former Fox News colleague, because he was able to do something O’Reilly could not – keep his pants zipped. Of course, that was something other Fox News people up and down the chain of command were unable to do, including Roger Ailes, who was forced to resign his post as CEO in disgrace after a number of women employees came forward and outed him as a sexual predator.

Hannity is like the barfly who guzzles cheap gin while spinning yarns of ridiculous proportion – from his support of the “birtherism” movement to claims of voter fraud that were proven untrue, lies about the health and welfare of then-candidate Hillary Clinton and, now, shouting to anybody who will listen, about the “deep state” that controls the nation from behind the scenes. He flaunted the science of climate change, promoted the lie of death panels to firm his stance against the Affordable Care Act and was once fired from a radio station for his hateful anti-gay comments.

Smith?

He’s a newsman, an old-school newsman with a style reminiscent of the late David Brinkley – a guaranteed foundation of credibility and truth laced with a wry wit. He can be counted on for a fair, accurate, honest daily report on a cable news network with specious, at best, credentials and a monosyllabic vocabulary. He is intellectually inquisitive in an environment where intelligence is a felony.

Hannity and Smith are in the dust right now after a Time magazine interview Smith granted.

In the story, Smith is quoted as saying that the opinion side of Fox News doesn’t “really have rules” and exists “strictly to be entertaining.”

He went on to say, “We serve different masters. …We work for different reporting chains, we have different rules. They don’t really have rules on the opinion side. They can say whatever they want. If it’s their opinion.”

Smith, on the other hand, can be relied upon for accurate and timely reporting without embellishing it with opinion.

Opinion pieces have always been an integral, vital part of the journalism world.

The job of an op-ed writer or broadcaster is to start the conversation, to get people talking, offer a view they may not have considered and deliver it in an entertaining or, sometimes, uncomfortable manner. Facts enter into the equation; wild, unproven conspiracy theories do not.

Some of our finest writers have been those with switchblade-like commentary on our times and culture, from the loquacious, but enviably talented conservative wordsmith William F. Buckley to the equally loquacious, but brilliantly gifted, Hunter S. Thompson.

There was Jimmy Breslin, William Safire, Drew Pearson, Jack Anderson, Molly Ivins and a host of others who have treaded the deep, dark waters of opinion writing. They angered readers, gave them a chuckle, but, most importantly, made them think.

The problem today is that those who work in that world, particularly in the broadcast realm, are not provoking much cerebral exercise. Instead, they are shepherding a mob of uninformed, angry sheep in desperate need of shearing wooly coats that insulate them from truth.

The problem is, however, that many cross that very distinguishable line between comment and propaganda, guiding their flocks by filling it with fearful stories about a big, bad wolf dressed in blue.

Ideological commentary is good. It’s a part of us, at least it should be if we hope to advance our humanity.

Propagandizing is not healthy on any level because it is the perpetuation of lies.

To insist, for example, that Barack Obama was not born in the United States even after proof was offered by way of an official state of Hawaii document is propagandizing.

To insist that there is no such thing as climate change when nearly every credible person of science verifies that fact, is propagandizing.

Opinion writers are often criticized for ad hominem, or personal, attacks.

The thing is, it is unavoidable because there comes a time when a person’s demeanor, actions, ideology become so offensive, so odious, so greedy or self-aggrandizing or deceitful they become wrapped in that person’s character, making them indistinguishable, inseparable from each other. Unfortunately, during those times, even the most gentlemanly or ladylike among us must grapple in the mud, which is acceptable as long as one does not wallow.

This feud between Smith and Hannity is curious because, after many years in the business, I have rarely found a polite newsroom.

During the old school days, newsrooms were highly volatile, decorated liberally with bad cigar smoke, stale whiskey and foul language.

Today’s newsrooms are, by comparison, monasteries where hardly a discouraging word is uttered. Lukewarm newsrooms result in a daily report so tepid you couldn’t brew a cup of tea.

And, while readers may rubberneck at the gory details of the car wreck du jour, it is the opinion writers who make them fulminate by challenging their sensibilities.

I must admit, I rarely watch Hannity or Smith these days. I just don’t feel right giving my business and free time to Fox News. In the interest of full disclosure, I also rarely tune in to MSNBC to watch Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews for the same reasons. They all leave me feeling more than a little bit dirty. Even when I find some finer points of political agreement I can’t help but feel my skin itch because of the messenger’s smarmy countenance.

Fox News will survive this clash of egos, to be sure.

Smith will remain well-paid and the network’s sole link to credibility while Hannity will continue to fan the flames of fanaticism he ignited with his populist pulp.

Me?

I’ll be watching “Seinfeld” and “Big Bang Theory” reruns instead.

At least they are intentionally funny.

No bad days!

Ed Kociela is an opinion columnist for St. George News. The opinions stated in this article are his own and may not be representative of St. George News.

Email: edkociela.mx@gmail.com

Twitter: @STGnews, @EdKociela