Yesterday's post on Fox News provoked an interesting discussion, and I wanted to follow up today with a few thoughts. Dave Weigel at the Washington Independent thought I'd missed the point of the White House's derisive comments about Fox. "You miss the point. It's specifically about the WH pressuring reporters not to take seriously/chase Glenn Beck scoops/stories," he Tweeted. Fair enough. The White House doesn't want less ideological news outlets going bananas over ACORN or the Czars. Media Matters has a very funny and telling video about Fox News here. But is the best way to "cauterize," to use Weigel's term, the wound a public attack on Fox? We'll see. Mother Jones's David Corn has his doubts, too. I think the whole episode will only elevate Fox. Politico has a much talked about story today that suggests the Fox comments are part of a larger White House effort to redefine the GOP.
Other folks criticized me for noting that a lot of Democrats and independents watch Fox. The latest Pew survey results are here. Fox's audience is more Republican and conservative than the other cable news networks, but it still has a substantial audience of Democrats and independents. I still wonder why the White House would want to disengage from them. In an age when there will be more and not fewer opinion-driven news outlets, these questions won't go away for Obama or his successor.
What's interesting is the widespread aquiescence by the rest of the media to the White Houses's Nixonian tactics. Bizarre.
Nixonian? I am not sure that word means what you think it means.
And where were these critiques when the Bush Administration was avoiding the New York Times, NBC, MSNBC or even CNN? While granting almost exclusive access to Fox.
I saw Bush interviewed by representatives of ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times and CNN. I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
That's pretty poor logic.
I saw Obama interviewed by Fox.
Just because you saw Bush interviewed by those networks does not mean that at some point they basically froze out any of those networks.
I am living in Bizarro world...Mark Halperin of McCain 7 house-gate is bad for Obama fame..said that the media is the one who can't see what a good strategery(thanks W) this is. I could have written that Politico argument a week ago.
Just as they (more likely Rahm) exposed Limbaugh as the screeching, hate-mongering (he always was) to the main stream...people (rightly or wrongly) associated him as the de facto leader of the Republican party. That may be fine with his legions of listeners...but in a country of 300+ million people...10 million is a salt speck in the ocean. Even, republicans were turned off by Limbaugh.
Since Beck decided to hide behind Fox News, and Hannity is already a resident of Fox News, kill two birds with one stone and malign the entire network. Sure, Greta, Bill, and Chris are not as shrill but you can find enough terrorist fist jabs, is Obama a citizen headlines during daytime to bunch them all together.
The beauty of this strategy is that while the media is twisting itself into knots about why the admin would do this..they report on it..on national T.V and in the papers..and the inevitable "Obama is a communist" "Obama is a racist" quotes from Fox news reporters/opionmakers comes along with the reports..all for the audience (voters) to see...Point= Obama adminstration.
The people who watch FOX will always watch FOX and the independents and Dems who watch FOX who didnt vote for Obama will never vote for him.
And the real loser of this entire charade are the Republicans...because once again they are perceived as leaderless..and no one wants to be led by a party with no leaders. So the GOP Voter ID continues to dwindle and Indies continue to rise.
I think the awesome thing about this plan is that the Beck, Hannity and Limbaughs of the world are so consumed with money and ego, that they will never back down...therefore elevating them further as the titular head(s) of the party and ...therefore having all who oppose them and attempt to grow a pair bow down and kiss their rings with a depressing "Sorry Rush"
It's a plan that warms the hearts of the most devious of us. You make us proud Rahm.
So in other words, you think Obama should grant interviews and access (and, by extension, legitimacy) to Fox News, but he shouldn't call them out when they spread right-wing propaganda, because that might "elevate" them.
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
The reason they shouldn't appear is that it legitimizes them. Without access, you're not a real news organization. It can force them to clean up their news operations.
It's not like Fox has fifty trillion viewers. Even if 30% of regular Fox viewers were Democrats, that's only..what? 600,000 people or so? Big deal. Obama won New Jersey by 600k votes. Putting Fox on the defensive at a cost of somewhat less access to a few hundred thousand people that probably didn't vote for Obama anyway...sounds like good politics to me.
Why is the White House engaging in a "War" with Fox News when our country is fighting two real wars in the middle east? Agree or disagree about why we are at war, the fact still remains that we are. Our commander in Afganistan has been asking for troops for a month now, and no decision has been made. Yet, the White House administration has consciously made the decision to unleash the troops on FXNWS. What are the priorities of the White House???? Obama made a campaign promise to succeed in Afganistan, at all costs. Gates and McChrystal have both called for a troop surge. What's the hold up? And please don't use the excuse about the fraudulent Presidential campaign results, because this decision cannot wait that long!
I think the administration can walk and chew gum at the same time. Obama is purposely holding off on the Afghanistan decision.
Besides, if Obama is successful in neutralizing Fox, then he has a better chance of success in executing all of his agenda, including his conduct of the war in Afghanistan.
He doesnt want to send more troops overseas after recieving a Nobel Peace Prize maybe? His agenda was suppose to be to win the war in Afganistan. A troop surge will most likely help that cause. It did in Iraq. So why doesnt he stick to his guns (campaign promises) and answer the requests of his top military advisors.
Bribing the Sunni to stop shooting at U.S. troops sort of worked in Iraq. I guess it was easier to keep order after so many Iraqis had left the country and the various groups were kept sequestered in their own areas.
And, there's still a lot of violence in Iraq.
I'm not in favor of the U.S. remaining in the role of world policeman, especially with the sorry state of the U.S. economy and its tremendous debt. So your neocon mindset is something that should be marginalized in this country, along with Fox News, in my opinion.