Fox is loving the revolution

Here we have contrasting news perspectives on the “Parent Revolution” in Los Angeles.

Take the Los Angeles Times article that Joanne cited recently.

Then take today’s Fox video, “Parent Revolution Vows to Change Schools.”

One of these views the “Parent Revolution” somewhat skeptically. The other does not.

One is an example of reporting; the other, of puff.


  1. We also have different media which is going to have an effect on the result. Two minutes is a long piece in TV-land while two minutes of reading isn’t much at all.

    So the comparison in specious.

  2. Diana Senechal says:

    Good point. And even with that generous time allotment, the Fox video says much less than the article.

  3. In a great deal of TV news, the images carry no useful information at all.  Further, any decent reader can read words much faster than they can hear them.  TV is truly for the ignorant; if you get your news that way, you’ll wind up taking more time to know far less.

  4. Dick Eagleson says:

    I fail to see any skepticism, even of the “somewhat” variety in the L.A. Times piece. It appears to be a straight-ahead job of literal, just-the-facts-ma’am reporting. As viewpoint-free reportage is not exactly standard operating procedure at the Times, I must say I’m pleasantly surprised to see some.

    If the local Fox affiliate’s report seems boosterish by comparison it’s probably just because every station staffer on camera is smiling throughout. But local newspeople seem to always smile through every story that isn’t actually about violent death (and even through some that are).

    Bottom line: I don’t think there is as much attitudinal distance between the two cited stories as you think there is.

    The title and tone of your post lead me to believe that you, personally, are not “lov’in the revolution.” Am I correct? If so, what is it about the “Parent Revolution” that you find objectionable?

  5. Diana Senechal says:

    I find objectionable that Steve Barr’s paid staff identified themselves only as parents when doing outreach. That is only the beginning.

    When I say the LA Times article shows more skepticism, I mean that the reporter took the trouble to ask questions and to probe the situation. The Fox video presents this as a straight-up parent movement, which it is not.

    One has to ask questions to get to the facts. The Fox people apparently did not ask many questions.