Fox News And Obama

Is Fox news an arm of the Republican Party? Is the Pope Catholic? Of course Fox News is an arm of the Republican Party and should be treated as such. Caterwauling from other so called journalists only points out how incompetent they are. Now is it good political strategy for the White House to do this? From their perspective, there is no doubt it is smart. Paul Begala gets it:

"This is a mutually beneficial deal,” said Paul Begala [Politico identifies Begala as a former Clinton WH advisor, which he is, more significantly he is a CNN political analyst] “Fox's ratings keep going up, as they're seen as the voice of opposition to Obama. The Democrats need to do something to excite their base, which is suffering from a case of the blues.”


Speaking for me only

< Is Obama's Dithering Hurting Chances For HCR? | Bernie Kerik : Bail Revoked, Jailed Pending Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think it goes well beyond (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 01:32:10 PM EST
    stimulating the base.  although that is no doubt part of it.
    what FOX is doing goes far beyond distorting the news.  they essentially created, sponsored and promoted those tea parties.  they were a FOX creation.  I cant ever remember as blatant an example of crossing the line from reporting the news to creating the news.

    oh? (none / 0) (#7)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 01:54:27 PM EST
    How about George W Bush's Fox-employed cousin calling the 2000 election?

    Seriously, we go on for days about incidents of Fox creating, or trying to create, "news."


    Excuse me. This is just so much B.S. (5.00 / 12) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 01:42:51 PM EST
    Passing good health care legislation excites me. Creating jobs excites me. Regulating the banks and doing something positive on education and climate change excites me.

    A temporary pie fight with Fox News is a distraction and I could care less.

    You just took the words outta my... (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 01:46:11 PM EST

    Couldn't have said it better.

    It's so discouraging how pi$$ poor pathetic the Dems -- and Obama, in particular -- are at both policy AND politics.


    Interesting how they'll stand up to Fox (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 01:47:40 PM EST
    while waiting for President Snowe and her gang to decide HCR.

    With a chuckle on the side.... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 01:51:19 PM EST
    so, who thinks MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, or any of the "reputable" mainstream networks are any better than FOX?

    I couldn't tell you. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Fabian on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 01:53:07 PM EST
    But MSNBC was the choice of many Obama supporters, if you want to know which Media that Obama was the Darling of!

    Can't watch any of the cable opinionators (none / 0) (#9)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 01:59:08 PM EST
    anymore....there's not a one that has me convinced they are reporting anything that keeps the public honestly informed.

    C-Span lets us see it for ourselves.


    The big difference with Fox (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:37:06 PM EST
    is it's not just the opinionators.  Their supposed "straight news" programs are less obviously but more insidiously wildly biased, as well.

    I guess I just don't see the big difference (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:40:44 PM EST
    I stopped watching all the cable "information/news/opinion" programming last year when it was obvious none of them could find a place of fair and unbiased to report from.

    None of it resembles (none / 0) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 11:54:12 PM EST
    the glory days of ABC News when it was at its peak, but it's actually worth watching Fox's signature "news" program "Special Report" from 6 to 7 now and then just to see how they do it with very careful word selection (for example, Dems always "complain" or "attack," Gopers always "point out" or at worst "criticize"), and more strikingly by what information they choose to report and what they leave out.  For the well-informed news junkie, it's absolutely infuriating.

    When Hume first started, his interview segment was about 2/3 GOPers and 1/3 Dems, but by a couple years into the show, he would go for months without bothering to have a Dem., or even a reasonably neutral, viewpoint.

    I haven't seen it since Hume left, but since their current anchor, Bret Baier, was one of the worst offenders as a reporter during the Hume years, I can't imagine it's improved any.


    Coulda fooled me... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 03:11:23 PM EST
    I thought they replaced all the "straight news" with "straight commentary" years ago...on all the channels.

    Rachel Maddow can be interesting (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 04:39:28 PM EST
    She can be a real Cassandra, constantly talking about the inevitable doom ...but she is thoughtful.

    Maddow (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 04:45:23 PM EST
    is the most credible talking head currently in the business.  

    Rachel Maddow is the least (none / 0) (#53)
    by hairspray on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 10:32:58 PM EST
    awful.  She at least has some good dialogue with the opposition.

    It's all info-tainment...n/t (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:37:50 PM EST
    Beat me to it... (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:00:38 PM EST
    exactly MO...if this excites anybody they are part of the problem.

    Exciting the base would be nice (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 04:12:04 PM EST
    Decent policy would be better.  And it would excite the base too....a twofer.

    Too bad the WH is more concerned (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 01:58:31 PM EST
    with which "journalists" are picking up on what Fox News is reporting than with what the American people want in the way of reform...

    And I don't think the WH has any business trying to discourage coverage of any outlet's stories by the rest of the media.  


    Exactly (none / 0) (#25)
    by star on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:55:05 PM EST
    Well said MO..

    Well said, I agree with you 100% (none / 0) (#56)
    by suzieg on Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 02:10:17 AM EST
    Not that I'm a part of the... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 01:59:20 PM EST
    dem base or anything, but the admin. spending a second attempting to delegitimize or even worry about Fox doesn't excite me...as that is time and effort that could be spent doing something worthwhile.  If it excites Dems, they can't be issued based Dems, maybe cult of personality Dems.

    Besides...Fox does a fine job delegitimizing itself...however Fox Nation will not be convinced if the messiah himself came down and told them not to watch...they sure as hell ain't gonna take the Dems word for it.

    Making this the most expensive food fight ever ... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ellie on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:13:33 PM EST
    ... doesn't mean it's finally that "right fight" the Dry Powder Dems have been promising all these long years. What, cause they intend to hurl lobster and drawn cultured butter at each other instead of cheapo canned cocktail weenies?

    Man, you don't want to catch a mouthful of that lobster and drawn butter cause if it's got a squirt of lemon on it, it'll, um, er, sting???

    These pointless doofuses should remember why they were sent to their positions of privilege in the first place.

    I get it, strategery-wise (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:47:23 PM EST
    But something that would really help the country instead of just getting the rightie flying-monkeys throwing feces would be to level a few pointed criticisms at other networks. Not for bias, but for the simple lack of real news coverage and intelligent discussion.

    Sure, Fox is an arm of the Republicans, but even that is not as harmful as CNN and MSNBC simply misinforming or under-informing people on important issues.

    I think Team D and R alike... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:51:09 PM EST
    like it that way...an uninformed and misinformed populace...don't expect any railing against that, their very jobs depend on it.

    alas, true (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 03:03:17 PM EST
    but terrible.

    My dear friends (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by kmblue on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 03:26:50 PM EST
    I believe I've said this before,
    but journalism is dead.
    It's almost all he said, she said,
    balloon kids,
    Roman Polanski,
    and Rick Sanchez getting tazed.
    Woodward and Bernstein are Villagers,
    Paul Krugman thinks some HCR is better than none,
    and the Wash Po is running a contest to find the newest snarky pundit.

    Rick Sanchez should be tazed. (none / 0) (#51)
    by oldpro on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 08:30:24 PM EST
    In fact, I'd taze him myself if I got the chance.

    Incredibly annoying 'style.'


    Fox News Czar? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by robrecht on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 05:42:58 PM EST
    I've always believed that Obama was sincere in his intent to raise the level of political discourse.  But I doubt they are not going to succeed against Fox News by avoiding them or trying to isolate them.  It's a worthy cause, perhaps, but he would be more successful by going on Fox and calling a spade a spade to their face.  But that takes a lot of time and energy and is not really the main focus of his office.  We didn't elect him to be a professorial media critic.

    In no particular order: Public option.  Common sense reform of Wall Street and corporate abuse.  Get us out of Iraq with all deliberate speed.  Save social security and medicare before they're dust and ashes. Equal educational opportunity for the underprivileged.  There's so many more important priorities.  Appoint some intelligent blogger as Fox News Czar, or not, but get on with our agenda.

    Strategy? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by coast on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 06:03:04 PM EST
    Strategy would require having an objective and means of accomplishing that objective.  If the objective is to simply excite the Democratic base, aren't there better ways than setting a precedent that has a very slippery slope.  So the WH excites its base, although from the responses above it does not seem to be working, what then?  Does this fight go on for four years?  Probably not, so what will be the WH's explanation when they begin speaking to Fox again?

    This is ameture politics, and is exactly the thing Obama said he was above.

    Just another sign that this president (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Slado on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 06:05:42 PM EST
    is better at campaigning and not governing.

    There is no way this works for Obama.  You don't punch down you punch up.

    Begala's quote is ludicrous.  Whining about Fox News just makes Obama look small.  As does whininga bout Rush and any other critic.  

    The American people are smart enough to read through the bias of any news orginization.   Fox is simply feeding the void left by the other lefty leaning networks.  If that void wasn't there Fox wouldn't be by far highest rated network on TV.   They are because the rest divide up the same market.  

    If all the other networds where like Fox, Fox would fill the void left and go straight lefty.

    Obama looks petty complaining about the one network that isn't on the payroll and he looses every time he brings it up.

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 10:02:59 PM EST
    IMO (4.33 / 3) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:21:56 PM EST
    pretty much every comment in this thread misses the point.

    you are not excited, because as I said, that is not what this is primarily about.  any comparison of FOX to other cable news outlets completely misses the point.  have you ever watched FOX?
    what they are doing is unprecedented.  they are the most watched news outlet in the country and they are completely in the tank for one party.
    anyone who says they are not or that Sheperd Smith makes it alright misses the point.

    FOX is not news.  its that simple.  and I for one and glad someone in power is finally saying that.

    So, combine the viewing audiences from (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:36:24 PM EST
    MSNBC, CNN, CNBC and the networks...all of them are pretty solidly biased toward Obama and combined viewership is probably close or greater than what FOX gets. The Republicans have one cable network biased toward their way of thinking.

    Who, besides Republicans, watches FOX? They can't influence anyone who has a mind of their own and chooses not to buy what they're selling.

    I don't find it the least bit disturbing that FOX exists or responds to its audience. It's one of those rights this country has.


    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:54:38 PM EST
    CNBC is pretty solidly biased towards Obama?!  Goodness!

    I can't speak for anyone else, (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:41:05 PM EST
    but I don't think the White House should be overtly or covertly twisting the arms of the media outlets they like to convince them not to pay any attention to any stories coming out of any outlet they don't.  And that stands whether the party in power are Democrats or Republicans.

    Can I control whether the WH deigns to appear or not appear on any particular network?  No.  But which is better: getting to state your case to viewers in your own words by appearing, or allowing your words to be interpreted the way the outlet's pundits and reporters want to interpret them for viewers who did not hear you unfiltered?

    It's clear that Fox News has not changed its ways by being locked out by the WH, but really, is it the job of the WH to attempt to control the media now?  I mean, I know they got kind of used to the nearly masturbatory coverage of MSNBC, but really - even if it served the WH, how well did that serve us in the end?  Not very well, I don't think.

    To me, the more the WH attempts to control the media, the more it looks like what's important to the administration is winning the popularity contest, even if they completely suck at the policy contest.  Again, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but what we do not need is a media so at the service of the president that they fail to serve as any kind of check, or hold the president to any level of accountability.

    So, Fox News sucks and isn't real news - is MSNBC any better, really, at the delivery of news, of telling you what you need to know to make informed decisions?  Or is MSNBC just better at saying things you want to hear?


    It's true that (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:49:01 PM EST
    ....Fox is not news.  But the idea of "unbiased reporting" in this country is a fairly recent phenomenon.  Early newspapers in the USA were hugely partisan, often owned and operated by political parties or individual politicians.  Then we segue into the era of the "muckrackers" and yellow journalism.  I would love for the news media to report the news, critically but in an unbiased manner, but we aren't going to get that.  This is why it's so important for people to try and get their news from a variety of sources, both within and outside of this country.  And I don't see why the White House has to pay one bit of attention to Fox News if they don't want to.  Fox can whine all they want to.  

    Who is doing the actual whining? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by star on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:56:14 PM EST
    IMO it is WH doing the WHining.. Fox is enjoying higher ratings out of it all

    David Letterman (none / 0) (#31)
    by Fabian on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 03:28:07 PM EST
    got higher ratings out of disclosing his sexual relationships.

    Some things sell - sex, scandals, the media versus a Democratic President.  (But not a Republican President.....)


    I am talking about the modern (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 03:38:04 PM EST
    24/7 news cycle.  not Charles Foster Kane.  and there is a huge difference between "biased reporting" which you might credit to MSNBC or someone else and what FOX does.

    I repeat.  FOX created the tea parties.  they supported and promoted them.  relentlessly.
    name me an example of liberal media that comes close.


    and I agree (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 03:40:20 PM EST
    no one is whining.  not FOX which is happy to have the fight and not the WH which is just calling a spade a spade.  and good on the WH for doing it.

    Seems like BTD's post was focused on (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 03:50:39 PM EST
    the political aspects of the WH doing this. IOW, a strategy of throwing "red meat" to the base to excite them. From my point of view, this is a tactic designed to distract people from the idea that the WH is disinclined to fight for things that will have a real impact on people's lives.  

    IMO, the Democratic base would have to be living under a rock not to be aware of the fact that Fox news was formed with the explicit intent of being a political arm of the Republican Party.

    Also, this pie fight with the WH will more than likely increase the number of people who tune into Fox to enjoy the show. Never a good idea to enrich an opponent IMO.


    As a member (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 04:51:23 PM EST
    of the PAST base, I think the base would prefer that the administration did some actual work.  We are not fired up by petty games.

    We are in serious times.


    have to be living under a rock (3.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 04:05:14 PM EST
    of course they would.  which is why it is not about them.  it is about independents many of whom watch FOX.

    You don't bring independents over (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 05:06:52 PM EST
    to your side by picking stupid fights with the media - you do it with good policy, for crying out loud, and by actually working to get your policies enacted.

    Relegating Fox News to the losers' table in the lunchroom is not the same as having any actual substance at your center, and I'm pretty sure that independents, who aren't easily led by the nose, already know this.

    I would much rather the WH try fixing the country and quit trying to fix the media - that might have some appeal to independents, too.


    "Vote for me! . . . (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 05:12:56 PM EST
    I got into a Pie Fight with FOX!! Yes. We. Did."

    Sounds great for 2012, eh?


    And (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 04:48:59 PM EST
    MSNBC IS news?  How bout the nightly news shows.  Those are news?

    We have no news.  And I don't think Faux is HUGELY worse than the others.  It may be worse, but not HUGELY worse.

    I don't think we're missing the point.


    There's a big difference (2.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 06:21:30 PM EST
    between having Politically biased commentary shows and having that same bias pervade your actual news coverage- furthermore I would argue that simply by employing former Wingnut Congressman Joe Scaraborough as the titular host of its morning show MSNBC shows more balance than FOX- can you imagine say "Cynthia in the Morning" a Fox show hosted by Cynthia Mckinney?

    Are you really comparing (2.00 / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 07:30:06 PM EST
    McKinney to Joe?

    Well admittedly Mckinney (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 11:32:21 PM EST
    never had an aide die under mysterious circumstances in her congressional office.

    You're right (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 01:28:40 PM EST
    she has b*lls and his are kept in a box on Murdochs night stand.

    Right next to that (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 01:55:03 PM EST
    "Darkies: How to make them work for you" copy of Readers Digest from the forties.

    Do you suppose anyone who watched (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 05:51:12 PM EST
    FOX news care what Pres. obama has to say about whether what they are watching is news or not?

    FOX doing it blatantly and unapologetically as (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ellie on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:36:53 PM EST
    ... WR Hearst and Walter "Good evening Mr and Mrs America, from border to border and coast to coast and all the ships at sea. Let's go to press," Winchell. If the Chimperor's Lapdog Media, R/L& "Center" deserves a special circle in Hell, it's for reviving that disgusting age of media in terms of viciousness and degree of bias.

    Now it's "okay" for egregiously rotten info sources to be tied to a self-aggrandizing emperor figure (like Berlusconi and his media conglomerate, and Putin and his image-makers.)

    If the ONLY thing the Dems managed with this landslide mandate was to restore the Fairness Doctrine, it would pretty much make up for these years of suckage.


    And of course (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 03:05:53 PM EST
    the running sores of talk radio have an all-out, all-the-time campaign going against the revival of the Fairness Doctrine.

    Who is it going to be after Fox? (none / 0) (#27)
    by star on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:58:46 PM EST
    Did you also like the pat on he back given to CNN and ABC for being 'Good sport'?

    how about (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 04:05:54 PM EST
    hate radio?

    Nixon's enemies list (none / 0) (#23)
    by diogenes on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 02:51:36 PM EST
    Next thing you'll be saying that Nixon benefited politically from having a political enemies list.  And don't tell me that the NY Times isn't the mouthpiece of the mainstream Democratic party, even if it doesn't always please progressives.

    Oh yeah totally (none / 0) (#49)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 06:22:14 PM EST
    Man I can't wait til I get my David Brooks.

    If Fox is the "arm" (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 12:58:46 PM EST
    A.M talk radio is the diseased, morbid-discharge producing appendage that they pretend to disavow.