Fox News Chief Washington Correspondent and author James Rosen completed teaching a two-week course in journalism at Hillsdale College Wednesday, Oct. 28. His work has appeared in publications such as the Atlantic, National Review, New York Times, and Playboy. His latest book “Cheney One on One: A Candid Conversation with America’s Most Controversial Statesman” releases Nov. 2. In an interview with the Collegian, Rosen reflected on the condition of news today, impact of his own reporting, and how the U.S. Department of Justice’s labeling him a “criminal co-conspirator” for his coverage of a North Korean nuclear weapons program impacted his career.
How do you respond to people who accuse Fox News of not living up to its motto of “fair and balanced” news coverage?
Most of the time, my experience has been — having been at this for quite a while having worked at Fox News for 17 years — the most ardent critics haven’t themselves watched very much Fox News. Some of the things I like to point out in this respect includes various studies done by the Pew Charitable Trust and other reputable institutions that have found that Fox News’ viewerships, which we can establish is the largest for day-by-day coverage for the last 13 years, also happens to be most evenly distributed along the ideological spectrum.
Fox News’ audience is roughly divided evenly between liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Why would that be if Fox News were simply, as President Obama has asserted it to be, an arm of the Republican party?
Why would liberals and moderates tune in so regularly to a channel that was simply feeding them Republican dogma? The answer is that Fox News has opinion programming that is often right-of-center, if not mostly, but Fox News also has full swathes of programming that are basically straightforward, fair and balanced news, as we promise. And I think that even that even distribution along ideological spectrums is a reflection that people understand Fox News is a valuable place to get news.
How would you describe the current condition of the news industry?
One word I would use to describe the news industry right now is upheaval.
That’s not to say that simply because an industry is in upheaval that its future is clouded, or bad, or doomed. It just means that change is afoot. And it may not be entirely clear how that change is going fully to sort itself out. But my suspicion is that as inscrutable as some of the changes we’re seeing are, news will continue. There will always be a need for information accurately and credibly.
Do you think there is validity in arguments saying that it is difficult today for readers to consume fair and accurate news?
This is easily disposed of using the Socratic Method. Did you find out when Osama Bin Laden was killed? The news somehow made its way to you.
I once had the opportunity to read and make photocopies of transcripts from every CBS News program from 1972 to 1975. Dan Rather himself arranged for me to do this because I think he realized how helpful it would be for my work on a book about Watergate I was trying to complete. He wanted me to read every transcript from 1972 to 1975 which would encompass the entirety of the Watergate Scandal. And I did so.
It was clear to me that the coverage of Richard Nixon — even though history proved fairly definitively that he was engaged in crimes as president of the United States — did not get a fair shake from the industry leader in TV news in that period. Walter Cronkite was not quite the model of journalistic neutrality as he’s portrayed to be. This is pretty well substantiated by Cronkite’s biography. The book talks about how Cronkite arranged for bugging of Republican National Convention in 1952. The book is pretty explicit on how Cronkite would inflect radio commentaries with a liberal point of view. So the idea that the 60s and 70s are some bygone area of studied neutrality on part of the news media is a myth.
Today’s news environment is certainly noisier, but I would be hesitant about declaring that our era is uniquely flawed as an era in which to get news at all.
What reporting of yours has had the most impact?
Obviously, my reporting on the North Korean nuclear weapons program that resulted in the Department of Justice’s investigation and a lot of associated actions and commentary and controversy would probably be the most influential reporting I’ve done in simple terms of my reporting setting into motion many other things.
But in individual areas where general interest may not be as broad, such as my work on Watergate, I like to think that I’ve had a big impact on the literature of Watergate and the Nixon presidency. My book on Attorney General John Mitchell focused on all the different subject areas in which he was involved. That included the killings at Kent State, his dealings to try to reign in the anti-war movement, his effort to desegregate the Southern school system, his role in specific scandals like Watergate, and his role in antitrust law. In all of those different fields, I try to make it my business to bring to the record more or new evidence that the study and literature didn’t yet have. And I know I’ve succeeded in doing that.
In every subject I’ve tackled, I’ve brought something new to the table to advance those historical narratives. In the limited world of Nixon scholarship, and the scholarship of the Cold War, the anti-war movement, Watergate, and race relations — all these things that John Mitchell’s life touched — I know that I’ve had an impact.
How did your being the object of a widely-publicized Department of Justice investigation impact your career?
I was the walking embodiment of the First Amendment for a while. It was something that had different kinds of effects, and some of which were contradictory of each other. Because you’re now famous and seen as maintaining yourself in a certain way and not disclosing who your sources are, and maintaining a certain seriousness of affair that some others tried to make light of, other sources will come out of the woodwork and confide in you. So it helped me as a reporter in some aspects.
By the other side of the token, there were some who, having seen me be involved in a certain situation that carried some legal ramifications, probably didn’t want to have anything to do with me thereafter. So all you can do is do your best and continue doing good work.
I’ve broken a lot of stories since then that show I wasn’t cowed by the government and that I’m still holding powerful people accountable and adding to the record of our times.
