Written by Ann
Last week, White House communications director Anita Dunne called Fox News “a wing of the Republican Party.” The President himself has referred to Fox News as “one station on television that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration.” Fox News claims that the white House is refusing to send any white House spokesperson to be interviewed by the network. The White House denied the charge. Then, on Tuesday, October 22, the White House tried to ban Fox News from the press pool made up of five news organizations organized by the White House Correspondents Association. The other four news outlets (ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN) refused to participate if Fox News was banned.
What has prompted this acrimony between the White House and Fox News? It may stem from Fox News’ summer coverage of the highly-charged town hall meetings and demonstrations against the Obama health care bill. Fox also led the story resulting in the resignation of White House official Van Jones and congressional investigation of ACORN, the community activist organization with a past association to the President.
What do you think of the White House tussle with Fox News? Do you think Fox has been “fair and balanced” in its coverage of the White House? Should Obama be attacking a 24-hour news organization?
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I am not a fan of Fox News. I think the tag line “fair and balanced” is laughable when applied to them. And so in a way, I can understand the White House deciding that if they are never going to get fair coverage from Fox, why should they bother with them?
OTOH, there is a reason why: you’re the White House, you’re the President, and you need to just suck it up and be “the bigger person” so to speak in this situation. There is not much to be gained by trying to cut Fox out – many of Fox’s audience already feel marginalized and some seem inordinately quick to see themselves as persecuted. Why feed into that? It strikes me as more of an emotional decision on the part of the parties who actually decided to do this, rather than a rational political decision. It’s quite possible there are some political nuances I’m not understanding or appreciating, but as it is I don’t think this is a fight the White House can really win, so a graceful withdrawal from the field of battle would be the best option, IMO.
I think this is so silly. The White House doesn’t seem to mind having a state sponsored network at MSNBC. Chris Matthews, by his own admission, said that it is his duty to make sure the president’s policies succeed. YIKES! So it looks like they are trying to snuff out opposition.
I am the first one to say that FOX is over the top, but so is MSNBC. When you try to muffle opposing voices and give free access to ones that agree with you, you remind me of Hugo Chavez and Castro. IMO.
Typical Chicago politics. Anyone disagrees, cut them off at the knees. They are also going after the US Chamber of Commerce! When they passed TARP, the Stimulis and Cash for Clunkers, the Chamber was all for it. The White house had no problem issuing statements stating this fact. But when the Chamber had the audacity to come out against Cap and Trade and all Health Care revisions, all of a sudden the White House is going after them. The US Chamber of Commerce is funded and exists to promote business. They are not there to mirror the White House’s policies.
Three months ago the White House made a deal with the Insurance companies in order to get their backing on a new Health Care bill. Obama and his staff mentioned every day that the insurance companies were backing them. Then the August recess made the White House go back on the deal with the insurance companies. The insurance companies then had the gall to have a recognized accounting firm study the bills to see how it would affect premiums. As expected, the CPA’s presented a study that said the new bill would increase premiums across the board. When they released this study, the White House reacted by threatening to remove the Anti-Trust status that insurance companies have had for over 60 years. Disagree and bear the wrath.
Fox has asked the tough questions, has unearthed the ACORN scandals, had the self -avowed communist Van Jones removed from the inner circle and even has had the NY Times admit that their staff has been slow to research any negative stories on this administration. The NY Times have one of their staffers now watching FOX to make sure they don’t miss another story.
For the other side that believes FOX is to be eliminated, tell me how you would have felt if the Nixon White House had done this to the Washington Post in the 70’s.
Go FOX! Keep asking the tough questions and keep digging. We need the press to do their job and their job is to question everything our government is doing. And before you ask, I never asked for President Bush to treat MSNBC or the LA Times in this fashion. We need both sides presented.
Yes Fox News is definitely a Republican oriented network. And? As if the other news networks- (every single other one )aren’t largely if not completely liberal? No complaints about that t hough are there? I am pleasantly surprised that those networks refused to show up if Fox was banned- very thankful for that.
How dare he try to squelch the one news outlet that doesn’t sing his praises. So upset about this whole thing, I’m trying to choose my words carefully. For me this does not speak at all highly of his character.
I do not like the trend that seems to be springing up that this is a President we can’t oppose, can’t speak out against. This isn’t a monarchy or a dictatorship.
If he sees speaking out in opposition of his policies- policies and plans that a large portion of the population do not support as “attacking his administration” than so be it.
I do see MSNBC as being liberal; the liberalism of the others is overrated, IMO. But terms like “liberal” and “conservative” can be a matter of perspective; what looks like middle of the road to one person can appear far to the left or right to another, depending on how far they themselves are from the center.
Samantha, I don’t know that I’d blame Obama, personally – I don’t think this was a unilateral decision by a president having a tantrum. I think this article in U.S. News & World Report (generally considered to be a right of center publication) gives a pretty fair run-down of the administration’s issues with Fox:
.usnews.com/articles/news/obama/2009/10/23/fox-pushed-team-obama-over-the-brink.html
I know it’s naive to expect that journalism outlets simply report the news, period (I was going to say “these days”, but I think the Edward R. Murrow/Walter Cronkite just-reporting-the-facts days were mythical, or at least short-lived; journalism has always been a dirty business). But when you have a news outlet actively, on a daily basis, trying to influence public opinion…it’s just distasteful to me. I happen to think Fox is the worst we have in this country (of major news sources, anyway) for doing that. MSNBC has a bent, too, yes, but I don’t see them as quite as egregious. I’m willing to be persuaded with examples, though.
As I said above, I think the liberalism of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN are overrated. I see these outlets as more interested in the business side of things than in influencing the direction of the country. That’s just my layperson’s POV, though.
I think it’s a HUGE mistake to go to battle with a 24 hour news organization. If they’re not being fair, say so, but trying to kick them out of the press pool? Huge mistake.
It looks like censorship (the real deal…government limiting politically charged speech) or at a minimum, like someone is thin-skinned. I don’t need thin-skinned President.
I’m surprised Obama let this get so out of control. He usually comes across as hard to rattle.
“For their part, Republicans say they are delighted that the White House is focusing on Fox, because it distracts the Obama team from more substantive issues and makes it look nasty.”
Thanks for sending the U.S. News and World Report link, Jennie. The quote above is from that article. I think it says it all.
Some of the reactions of the Obama administration have seemed to be based more on emotions than a solid communication or policy making strategy. I think that is unfortunate. I consider myself liberal to middle-of-the road on most issues and I really can’t support them in this. I think the only ones clapping are the far-left perhaps.
If anything, I think the Obama administration should be pressing to have spokespeople on Fox News more.
I watch all three of the cable news outlets from time to time. I generally give CNN more credence than MSNBC or Fox, however.
I am a republican (although I am greatly disappointed at the Bush Admin. for the economic decisions over the last 8 years) and I watch FOX every day, but I go out of my way to watch Olberman, Maddow and Bill Maher at least once a week. I have never seen a conservative on those shows (when they are rarely on) treated fairly and allowed to answer the questions asked without being cut off or ridiculed. Fox ALWAYS has a liberal or democrat (I think they are different) on when having a discussion on an issue. Bob Beckel is on at least 3 times a week on Hannity and he states himself that hannity treats him fairly. What scares the White House is that they know there are tens of thousands of independents or undecideds watching FOX every day. Hannity spent one hour last week with Michael Moore and even though they disagreed on every issue, Moore stated that he enjoyed the back and forth. Ever see Ann Coulter on Olberman?
I agree Jeff. I watch Olberman on occasion, too. He never has a different opinion on, and he always starts the “interview” feeding the thought to his guest. It is truly amazing.
BTW–Fox ratings are even higher since this has started. I’m afraid, as with many of President Obama’s policies, this is one more unintended consequence.
I disagree strongly with the notion that Fox is “the worst in the country” at trying to influnece opinion and that MSNBC is somehow even slightly less “eggregious.” MSNBC just 2 weeks ago ran stories with flat out lies about so-called statements made by Rush Limbaugh. Think what you want about Rush Limbaugh and his politics but the point is that they had absolutely no source for these statements but a Wikepedia entry. All of the disgusting statements were proven to be false. Did MSNBC apologize? Furthermore, MSNBC basically admits to existing to support the President’s agenda. MSNBC twists the truth and attacks. I, too, make it a point to watch MSNBC. Keith Olbermann rarely has a counterargument to things said on Fox. He just attacks personally.
Here is just a sampling of the ultra fair treatment that is given on MSNBC
hotair.com/archives/2009/10/13/video-matthews-muses-on-killing-rush-limbaugh
Here is a segment from John Gibson. Yes, he’s from Fox news but has some interesting sound bites that illustrates my other point about MSNBC and their love affair with Obama.
olbermannwatch.com/archives/2009/10/john_gibson_who.php#comments
MSNBC is just as “divisive” as Fox news supposedly is.
And there is clear media bias in NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN. It took then 2 weeks to start covering the ACORN videos that surfaced. They didn’t start coverving Van Jones until after he left office (On a Sunday of a Holiday weekend at Midnight. No strategery there by the Obama administration, right?).
Just my opinion…..
P.S. I had to go to those blogs for the soundbites becaused Youtube is down. Darn Youtube!
Jeff, you are probably right about Olbermann and Rachel Maddow (I don’t watch at that time.) In the morning, MSNBC has a show called “Morning Joe” and it is hosted by Joe Scarborough (sp.?) He’s Republican. He often has Pat Buchanan on as a commentator. It’s a pretty fair show. I like it because it is more serious than the FOX News show.
I just read where Fox News had a good week. Its ratings rose 8 percent in the two weeks since White House aides labled it ” a wing of the Republican Party.”
Pam, well there you go – proof positive the Obama administration’s strategy is not effective.
I have a slight crush on “Morning Joe”, Joe Scarborough. Wish I could see is program more often. 🙂
I thought this piece from “The Daily Show” had some good points to make about how Fox is different:
thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake
I’d like to point out that there is a difference between what goes on in the editorial/opinion shows on Fox (and other networks) and the actual “news” segments on these channels. Furthermore, I don’t know that Fox necessarily tries to find the most reasonable and articulate representatives of opposing viewpoints on their various editorial shows (Hannity, O’Reilly), which calls into question the value of even having opposing viewpoints. Finally, it seems a little disingenuous to draw attention away from Fox and towards MSNBC – if MSNBC has a bias, and whether it’s as bad/not as bad/worse than Fox’s, that doesn’t really address Fox’s bias, or the White House’s issues with Fox’s bias. While it’s fair to expect some impartiality from the President and the White House, it doesn’t really seem reasonable to expect them to be as offended or distressed by bias in their favor as by bias that’s against them. If only for the simple reason that the latter tends to cause them problems and lead to issues with the carrying out of their agenda.
I don’t think it is disingenuous to call out MSNBC, because it exposes the hypocrisy of the arguments.
#1 I don’t think MSNBC’s bias is in question. Chris Matthews has stated that(in between leg tingles)it is his job to make sure Obama’s policies succeed. Bias much?
#2 MSNBC did not have any problem trashing the Bush administration on a daily basis.
#3 If the Obama administration can benefit from the fawning at MSNBC, then they should be big boys and girls and accept what goes on at FOX with good grace.
MSNBC’s “news” broadcasts are every bit as slanted as their commentators’ shows. They zero in on the wackadoodles in any opposing crowd. I heard one “news anchor” talking about how great it would be if the unemployment percentage could stay below 10% for Obama’s popularity. This was during a news broadcast. Not hoping for good employment numbers for the country–worrying about Obama’s popularity.
I don’t think the attention should be on FOX at all. I think it should be on a thin skinned administration. The same people that lauded the wonderful dissension against the Bush administration and its policies as fundamentally American, are the ones whining the loudest.
I am not George Bush’s biggest fan by any stretch, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I really don’t want news outlets that only agree with any administration.
Lastly, I love Joe Scarborough, too.
BTW I love Jon Stewart, and think Glen Beck and Keith Olberman are a few bricks shy of a full load.
Just my opinion :).