Politics with Marc Ambinder

« Taking the Long View of the Stimulus | Main | On Nukes, Obama Plans Hands-On Approach »

Oct 23 2009, 4:00 pm by Matthew Cooper

Fox News, Chapter 263

Mickey Kaus has a smart take on the Fox News flap here. He makes the point that there's a distinction between conservative and independent. Conservative doesn't bother him (or me) but lack of independence does, and thus the White House is right when it says Fox is not a standard news organizaiton, not because it's right-leaning but because it's a defacto arm of the GOP. Not entirely sure I buy the argument. But it's an intriguing nuance. In any event, I still don't see the upside to the fight for the White House unless it succeeds in galvinizing those who are bummed about closing Gitmo, deferring don't-ask-don't-tell and other compromises. Today's story in Politico that Roger Ailes himself might run for president is so absurd--I'm sure there's talk about it but the prospect is so absurd--that I hope it marks a coda to this chapter. I doubt it. Meanwhile, did all of this have the effect of deterring the MSM from going after Fox-style stories? We'll see.

:: Comments (8) :: Share This

Comments (8)

Bemused

With all due respect, the more that I hear pundits and others in the media bad-mouth this strategy, the more I think it's likely to achieve exactly what the administration hopes. This episode provides a great example of how myopic and unimaginative (i.e., unable to think outside the DC box) the political media can be. If a strategy or tactic has never been used before, they can't imagine that it might work. There's a fine line between being informed by history and being married to it.

jennis psycho

Ummm...we're talking about MSNBC/NBC whose parent GE got hundreds of billions of dollars in low-interest loans from the Obama admin for its financial arm, and who stands to make billions from climate change legislation...and they're considered independent when compared with Fox?

BamaMan (Replying to: jennis psycho)

Well said!!!!!

jennis psycho

And they just happen to provide sycophant coverage of Obama which coincides 100% with the business interests of their parent company, and we're supposed to believe this is just some sort of coincidence?

slag (Replying to: jennis psycho)

Obviously, you've never watched MSNBC or have heard of a guy named Joe Scarborough. And Rachel Maddow smacks Obama around quite a bit herself. Why don't you learn a little something about which you comment?

And if you think Obama's agenda coincides 100% with GE's business interests, you live on a different planet.

BamaMan

Don't listen to 'em jennis. Immelt is in bed with Obama and anyone who pays close enough attention knows it.

Hemmingplay

As Jennis Psycho's comments demonstrate, Fox has again dictated the terms of the discussion.

They're simply returning to an old American form of party-hack journalism that predates WWI. "Objectivity" as a professional norm came into American journalism when people like Pulitzer and Hearst figured out how to make a bundle by getting away from the old partisan press model, where most newspapers were house organs for one party or another.

Fox is driving the discussion again, notice, because now we're talking about whether other networks are as partisan, not about whether partisanship is itself a good thing or not.

It's not.

We just haven't figured out how to make money in this new internet age with industries that are still mired in the 20th century.

I don't want to encourage MSNBC to be just as partisan, I want to force Fox to defend -- and MSNBC, for that matter -- how being so overtly and obviously partisan is good for the republic.

TycheSD

I thought Kaus' criteria for judging press organizations were pretty good. I think the top two that he mentions - neutrality and independence - are accurate ways to determine the quality of a news organization. Fox is not neutral and they are not independent.

Plus, they're so angry on Fox. And their women commentators are so shrill and harsh.