Obama’s anti-Fox News strategy ripped from the GOP playbook
Shut up already about Fox News, won’t everybody?
The network is here to stay, whether President Obama sits down and talks to Chris Wallace or not. But now that the White House is on the offensive against News Corporation’s 24 hour news channel, even other networks are starting to ask if it’s presidential for senior staff in Obama’s employ to call out people who cover the White House for a living. But Obama’s critiques of the ‘fair and balanced’ network could be good news for Fox, and there’s nothing new about the president’s strategy.
For starters, Fox News should be honored. The Obama White House laying into them is a sign that the network has achieved a rather important status, something of a cable network of record for an important segment of America’s population. And because they have honed their voice to represent a slice of American life so effectively, one that is in may ways hostile to the president, the White House has placed them in their sights.
If this seems familiar, consider the case of the Bush White House versus the New York Times. George W. Bush’s tendentious relationship with the Old Gray Lady started on the campaign trail when Bush was caught on a live microphone declaring that Times reporter Adam Clymer was a “major league asshole.” What followed was 8 years in which the New York Times became a something of a bete noire to Bush. Our nation’s 43rd president failed to sit for an interview with the paper. And the Times then grew into a crucial punchline in the telling of conservative stories about American political life. Rush Limbaugh quotes the New York Times everyday in his broadcasts, but still manages to constantly call out America’s paper of record as a propaganda organ that’s no better than the Soviet Union’s Pravda.
The thing about this strategy is that it worked! Constantly criticizing the New York Times became an important rallying tool for a conservative segment of the electorate that continues to this day. “Where’d you read that, in the LIBERAL New York Times?” you may find yourself asked when sparring verbally with some self-identified conservatives.
And now liberals and progressives have a rejoinder, “Where’d you see that, Fox News?”
As evidence, see this e-mail I received this evening from MoveOn.org, asking for my support of a Fox News boycott:
All year, FOX has worked 24/7 to block President Obama’s agenda—repeating lies about “death panels,” promoting Tea Party protests, and whipping up fake political scandals.1
Now, President Obama is fighting back. The White House communications director said FOX is a “wing of the Republican Party…let’s not pretend they’re a news network.”2 To draw attention to its biased coverage, President Obama will not appear on FOX for the rest of this year.3
It’s about time Democrats stood up to FOX! Can you sign this petition asking Democrats to support President Obama’s stance by staying off FOX as long as he does?
This is not an ineffective political rallying strategy. A Pew poll last month showed that just as 31% of Republicans have an unfavorable view of the Times, 36% of Democrats also do not favor Fox News. By pounding Fox News, Team Obama is providing a new rallying cry for his electoral base that will probably do little to dissuade most independents from voting for him, or Democrats, down the line. Voters who will be offended by their favorite network being criticized by the White House were unlikely to ever vote for Obama. And voters who loathe Fox News will find themselves reminded why they found Obama preferable in the first place. Everyone in between those two poles has better things to worry about.
So Fox Newsies should be proud of what they’ve accomplished. As one who worked for smaller online media outlets during the latter years of the Bush administration, I can tell you how frustrating it is when you’re on deadline and the White House won’t even acknowledge that you exist. If Obama’s senior staff are talking about Fox News, it’s a sign that you matter.
***
The question that remains for me is how the White House-Fox relationship will evolve. Just because Obama won’t go on Fox News Sunday doesn’t mean the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein is finally going to get a seat at the daily press briefing. Time will come now when Fox News, as an actual journalistic outlet, will get a major scoop that could have a real impact on America’s economy or security. And will Fox act like the Times if that moment comes?
When the New York Times was close to breaking the story on the warrantless wiretapping program authorized by the Bush White House, the Times’s top editors, with Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, were called into the White House and discouraged from publishing the story. The Times did publish the startling revelations some days later, but they heard out the White House’s objections. Will Roger Ailes show the same judiciousness that Bill Keller demonstrated in that case? Or will he in a fit of partisan pique shout ‘damn the torpedoes?’ Last, if a moment like this comes to pass, will the Obama White House even bother?
This is an unwritten chapter in the 44th presidency that I’m eager to read.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by obamaupdates and Tweets Tube, Lingo News. Lingo News said: Obama's anti-Fox News strategy ripped from the GOP playbook – True/Slant- MiamiHerald.co… http://bit.ly/3m5IsA [...]
This is an interesting piece Michael. But drawing a parallel between The New York Times and Fox News doesn’t wash. One example. Yesterday morning I watched “Fox and Friends,” the networks morning show. It had a segment on health care. Invited was a single “expert commentator,” Newt Gingrich, former Republican speaker of the House. His attacks on “socialist” Democrats was scripted and predictable. No Democrat was invited onto the same segment.
You have not and will not see a parallel in The New York Times. It reports the news. Most often, Fox is merely propaganda as chronicled some time ago in the excellent movie, “Outfoxed.”
My point. It is absolutely legitimate to question the strategy or even the motivation of the Obama White House in singling out Fox. It is interesting to give an historical perspective. But in the process don’t legitimize Fox News by comparing it to The New York Times. They stand at absolutely opposite ends of the journalistic spectrum when it comes to standards, even though The Times has made plenty of mistakes.
Jerry, I’m with you that anyone relying exclusively on Fox News is going to have problems with understanding the world around them akin to the problems one has with one’s health if they consume a diet of only Kraft mac n’ cheese, Coca-Cola, and Hostess cherry pies.
I might also say the same if you only read the Times that you’re missing a big chunk of the world.
But FNC has established itself as an important outlet for a particular segment of America’s population. You may not like it, but there’s no questioning that.
That said, while Fox and Friends is a horrifically produced program (and this is probably my favorite clip ever), and O’Reilly and Beck have successfully brought the standards and practices of talk radio onto television, FNC does have real news producers who engage in actual journalistic conventions. They may be collateral damage in the battle between Ailes’s ideology and the White House, but they are real journalists. Have a look at the White House news team’s blog as an example.
In response to another comment. See in context »Absolutely legitimate points, Michael. I appreciate the example of a well-reported blog and love the cobra piece on Fox and Friends.
And though you don’t say it explicitly, Obama clearly could agree to be interviewed by Fox if the network would agree to send a real reporter or producer (whom he could stipulate). I think the only place we disagree on this one is that I don’t believe, taken as a whole, Fox News can be compared to The New York Times. The Times can be arrogant, it can be careless, it can be elitist but more often than not it reports stories. Somewhere in a piece the reader will find varied perspectives. Fox does this, too, sometimes. But I’d call it the exception rather than the rule. That is the distinction I’m trying to make. Should that be the basis of Obama refusing to talk to the network? Likely not.
Only 36 percent of Dems view Fox unfavorably? What the heck is wrong w/ the other 64?
[...] goose, sauce for the gander, right? It’s kind of funny to think that in all the years when President Bush was dueling with the New York Times, no one ever suggested that Arthur Suzlberger Jr. should run for president (then again, Sulzberger [...]