When The President Wrestles Fox News, Who Wins? Pundits Weigh In


obama-beer-7-30

At the risk of playing the “first” card so reviled on the Internet, Mediaite called the showdown between Fox News and the Obama administration back in mid-August. Now that it’s officially here, heralded by an attack-dog performance by White House Communications Director Anita Dunn on Reliable Sources and unhindered by a secret coffee date between Roger Ailes and David Axelrod, what does it mean? And which side, if either, will ultimately come out on top? A roundup of pundit reactions from the blogosphere and beyond:

First, here’s what Dunn had to say to Reliable Sources host Howard Kurtz:

“Let’s be realistic here, Howie, they’re widely viewed as a part of the Republican party: Take their talking points, put ‘em on the air. Take their opposition research, put ‘em on the air. And that’s fine, but let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is … I’m not talking about people like Major Garrett, I’m talking about the overall programming.”

This in addition to an official blog that has called Fox out on biases and reporting inaccuracies, a la Media Matters. It’s an unusual approach, but will it backfire and boost Fox at Obama’s expense?

  • David Gergen seems to think so. Speaking with Wolf Blitzer over the weekend, he said that he “would not advocate” the Obama administration’s fire-with-fire strategy: “If you are going to get very personal against the media, you’re going to find that the animosities are just going to deepen, and you’re going to find that you are almost going to draw viewers to people you are attacking. You build them up in some ways, you give them stature.”
  • Fox News also seems to think so. Brian Stelter reports that Fox executives are geared up for the fight, and think that it will help their ratings: “Don’t pick a fight with people who like to fight,” Roger Ailes is said to have remarked in internal discussions.
  • Gawker, no big fans of Fox News, thinks it’s more or less a wash. “There is a degree to which the entire ‘war’ is mutually beneficial, with both sides firing up the base. But we imagine the Obama White House has also been surprised by the depths of Fox’s irresponsibility (witch-hunting, actively organizing and promoting protests of the president’s legitimacy, everything Glenn Beck does and says),” writes Alex Pareene.
  • Jeff Bercovici also thinks it’s a bad idea on Obama’s part. He acknowledges that Obama’s in a tight spot, but says there’s not much to be done: “Obama can’t win this one, but he can avoid spending his ammunition in a hopeless fight. He should take heed of what I advised John McCain over a year ago: that running against the press is a loser’s strategy. It signals weakness.”
  • A roundtable on Sunday’s Morning Joe criticized Obama for adopting a confrontational style against Fox. MSNBC analyst Harold Ford Jr., a former Congressman, put it like this: “I was in politics for ten years in Congress, and I never shied away from a chance to go face-to-face or head-to-head with those I knew may have a different opinion than me. I think it’s unfair to say the President won’t find his way to that forum.” Morning Joe has been pretty evenhanded as the Obama-Fox spat has heated up; they derided Fox for skipping an Obama press conference in July.
  • Crooks and Liars’ John Amato takes the dissenting viewpoint: he says that Dunn’s Reliable Sources interview was refreshing because she was telling the truth, and that the bias of Fox’s reporting is so strong that it needs an official response. “Dunn held back no punches and stated fact. That’s nice to see.”

Conclusion: the conventional wisdom seems to be that a fight with Fox drags Obama down and brings Fox up, even if, as Amato says, the White House is right on all of their substantive charges. Attacking may fire up Obama’s base, but he doesn’t really need to fire up his base at this point; even with House and Senate majorities, he needs to build a broad consensus. Attacking a cable network not just on individual points but on the grounds of its existence is an oddly cablish move for a president to take, and even the non-Fox zombies of America are likely to take note.

(image via Say It Ain’t So Already)

EmailTwitterFacebookDiggRedditStumble UponYahoo BuzzLinkedInTumblrDelicious


28 comments

  • Jim R Jim R says:

    I’m with John Amato on this one. Democrats are perceived as weak because they try comity instead of engaging, the protestations of beltway insiders like Gergen and Broder notwithstanding.

    It doesn’t need to be tit for tat, but the occasional backhand against blatant propagandists will be productive in the long run.

  • John53 John53 says:

    The propaganda media has provide unlimited positive coverage (even when undeserved) of Mr. Obama since the primaries. They have provided aide and cover for many of his mistakes. Fox is the only one even attempting to provide basicly fair coverage and the ego in the white house cannot accept this. Disagreements between the media and the white house is common in every administration since Washington, but Obama’s worshipers can not stand someone making less than positive remarks against their leader. Mr. Obama’s administration has made far too many rookie mistakes to be let off without criticism and if Fax doesn’t do the propaganda media won’t.

  • Tater Salad Tater Salad says:

    The President and his staff sound just like the morons who say they won’t play football it Rush Limbaugh buys the Rams. They are a bunch of babies for sure and to the point of being laughable racists for the most part. The liberal Democrats haven’t changed have they. Pandering to all the special interest groups still.

  • ChrisNH ChrisNH says:

    There is absolutely no reason for Fox to stop doing what they’re doing. Obama and his administration simply want a highway with no one on it. Good luck with your campaign against FNC. You won’t get the cable channel to soften its tone, and you won’t be able to shrink its audience. So what, then, could they possibly hope for out of this? What a head-scratcher.

  • Lawyer822 Lawyer822 says:

    The morons are people like you that defend Fox . Defenders are pathetic… No matter what the presidents does your morons will never like him or his agenda. He could feed the worlds hungry get world peace and you idiots would find something to complain about. Fox uses false information and when it’s pointed out they never correct. It’s time the Democrats fight back.. regardless. Enough of the right wing crap

  • am_underground am_underground says:

    I’ll take Fox over MSMBC or CNN anytime. What those two offer is nothing short of PC correct reporting with the likes of Anderson, Blitzer, Maddow, and the likes. When they all grow a pair, excluding Maddow-she might be the only one with, and stop their pandering to everything left, we might just become a Country with clout again.

  • m m says:

    You’re insane if you lump Anderson and Blitzer together with Cooper. Has your mind gotten perverted by constantly listening to talk radio and watching to Fox News that anything that isn’t blatantly slanted to conservatism is lumped together into one group? Blitzer and Anderson are straight, middle-down-the-line reporters. Maddow is a commentator, like O’Reilly or Hannity.

  • m m says:

    Err I meant “You’re insane if you lump Anderson and Blitzer together with Maddow”. My bad.

  • ImNotBlue ImNotBlue says:

    M… normally I’d agree with you on the point that Cooper and Blitzer aren’t the same as Maddow. Blitzer is more or less a news reader… and Cooper and investigative guy, who sometimes can’t help let his opinions out (see the Tea-Party Protests as a good example of Cooper not being able to contain himself). However, there are apparently new ads which specifically highlight Cooper as being “the Democrats choice,” or some such thing. This brings into question whether or not his show will attempt to be a “hard news” program, or if they’re going to take the left-wing restraints off. Either way, it brings him one step closer to Maddow-ism.

  • Dan Abrams Dan Abrams says:

    The question is not whether someone on the left ought to keep Fox’s feet to the fire. It’s also not whether Fox is right or wrong but rather, whether the White House ought to be waging a public war with Fox. Of course the answer is no . . unless the covert goal is to boost Fox’s ratings and influence. There are plenty of other entities on the left who can, and do, “call out” Fox News.

  • m m says:

    True. One of the important things in politics is to fight upwards.

  • sarainitaly sarainitaly says:

    The WH should not be waging a war with FOX. The WH should say that they realize FOX is center leaning Right, but that it is good in America to have checks and balances within the media. Sans FOX the MSM would consist of 99% Obama cheerleaders. And bottom line – half the country did not vote for Obama, and half of the country identifies as Conservative. Just because they don’t agree with Obama doesn’t mean they don’t exist, or have a voice.

    FOX forced the MSM to cover stories like Van Jones and ACORN, and the tea parties. People can hate FOX all they want, but they should be extremely glad that we have more than one voice in the media.

    Waging a war with FOX makes them look small, naive, paranoid, inexperienced, and thin skinned. Obama needs to get to work, and ignore the chatter.

    “…he says that Dunn’s Reliable Sources interview was refreshing because she was telling the truth, and that the bias of Fox’s reporting is so strong that it needs an official response. ”

    What about the bias of all the liberal stations? Doesn’t that need addressing? Or is it ok because they are liberal and supportive of Obama?

    Is it really bias or is it just a difference in ideologies? The Obama administration accuses FOX and their viewers of bias because they won’t buy what Obama is selling…. but, if they don’t believe it, why should they?

    As for the WH.gov fact checking – did anyone in the MSM fact check their fact checking? They were not very honest in their *facts* http://tinyurl.com/ydy2jaz

  • TfT TfT says:

    The WH is using our tax dollars to stifle speech. This is more than shameful. Right now, CNNMSNBC are not on their radar, but if (and I know it’s a big IF) they ever decide to take him on on the actual issues, they will be next in the cross hairs.

    This is dangerous. I’m glad to read that most of the punditry is telling Obama to back off. Not only does it make them look like big babies, but it reveals that the WH senses they they can and do control all other media outlets.

    I guess Team Obama is so spoiled because of the open campaigning the networks did for Obama during the run up to the election, but it’s high time that the rest of the media start asking questions other than: can I get you another pillow.

  • Jim R Jim R says:

    The Clinton Administration let all this crap go too, while the MSM ended up being complicit in an eight year political coup conducted by right wing millionaires.

    Keep bringing it Anita! We’re sick of laying down for these liars.

  • Kevin Kevin says:

    Fox has a large number of democrats that have “regular” speaking opportunities on Fox. I doubt you could find as many republicans on all the other networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Post, NY Times, etc) combined. To me, that says it all. The media’s job is to keep the administration honest, not be a cheerleader. CNN had a group of kids singing Obama songs in a CNN studio and felt it necessary to fact check SNL (that says it all!). MSNBC has people that nearly wet themselves when Obama speaks and actually said they would do anything to get Obama elected. NBC’s Meet the Press has Maddow sitting in on some of their panels….wow. All of these networks blasted Bush at every opportunity and CBS went so far as using false documents in their attack.

    “Most of you covered me, all of you voted for me”, Obama said at a media gala. Most administrations despise the media……what does it tell you when they like all media outlets but Fox? It’s sad when a party wants to bring back the fairness doctrine so they can stifle any opposition. This debate should be held in Venezuela rather than the US. This admonistration is too thin skinned.

  • Kevin Kevin says:

    sarainitaly wrote: “What about the bias of all the liberal stations? Doesn’t that need addressing? Or is it ok because they are liberal and supportive of Obama?”

    Great point and should have been part of the story!
    Obama’s quote “Most of you covered me, all of you voted for me” is not that far from the trooth.

  • Kevin Kevin says:

    Truth, not trooth.

  • TfT TfT says:

    When talking about how most of the media reports on Obama, trooth works just fine.

    This war is going to backfire. It should be lesson to every other network out there. Anita Dunn told the public that Team Obama owns all other networks. Is that the reputation they really want to have? It’s one thing for folks like me, a news consumer, to bash the networks, but when the WH publicly states that they OWN nbcabccbsnbcmsnbcnytimesetal isn’t that cause for alarm for the other “news” organs? (Of course, I should have eliminated NBC/MSNBC from that list, because indeed the WH does own them…bowing Brian, tingles Matthews, et al).

  • Sunnyr Sunnyr says:

    Bring it on, White House. But STOP using TAXPAYER’S MONEY! Fox News and Glenn Beck are ROCK STARS and will continue to do what they do, whether the dictator-in-training-pants likes it or not. Ever time Anita Dumm goes on TV and tries to diss Fox News, their numbers just go up. Keep up the good work, Dumm. We are hoping for a Nobel Prize for Glenn Beck next year. GLENN BECK TOTALLY ROCKS!

  • Dave Martin says:

    Fox News can also be called, The Jesus Channel/ GOP TV/ The Glorious Official Republican Government News Network.

    While Fox News has the highest ratings, it’s also the same group of people that make up just 20% of America’s electorate… the far right-wing of the GOP.

    There will always be an audience for the far right and that’s Rupert Murdock’s Fox News demographic.

    Rupert keeps them frothing at the mouth with manufactured fear and GOP talking-points, phony outrage.

    Fox is also a right-wing echo chamber.. notice that when “The Wall Street Journal”, “The Weekly Standard” people are on Fox News there’s never disclosure that these people are all Rupert Murdock employees.

    Imagine if MSNBC or CNN did this… I don’t know how Fox News gets way with constantly recycling Rupert Murdock’s employees (sockpuppets) from his various media properties.

    There’s harldy a word on the “MSM” about Murdock’s world wide (far right-wing) media empire.

    Murdock has a lot of influence, example: all of his various sockpuppets, Hannity, Beck, etc, and all of Murdock’s worldwide media holdings trash global warming, Presidnet Obama and anything else right-wing Rupert Murdock dislikes.

    I think that press and especially individual journalists are deathly afraid of Rupert Murdock and what he can do to them professionally.

    Rupert Murdock is the new William Randolph Hearst.

    Another thing, Sarah Palin, who is a favorite among the Faux News/ Right-wing crowd is getting Rupert Murdock’s wingnut welfare.

    Palin’s (Rupert Murdock’s ghostwriter) book publisher is HarperCollins… a wholly owned Rupert Murdock subsidiary, you ‘betcha.

  • Dave Martin says:

    Also, there should be an award given to the guy that writes the ominous, scary music for Fox News… he’s obviously a full-time employee.

    No seriously… whenever there’s a special where Rupert Murdock wants to convince Americans that Saddam Hussein has WMD, or that Iran/North Korea is going to attack America tomorrow, or a Hannity or Beck segment where they want to scare their right-wing audience (even more) there’s always that ominous music to go along with the story.

    It’s like a scary GOP music video.

  • CaptainAmerica CaptainAmerica says:

    Too bad Dave is so clueless about FNC’s viewership. As Juan Williams quoted today the Pew Study where FNC’s viewership is very diverse. Unlike CNN and MSNBC which are made up of mostly Democrats, FNC’s viewership is Democrats, Republicans and Indpendents.

    But we can see why there are people who hate FNC. They are the ones who want/love the Obama handouts.

  • CaptainAmerica CaptainAmerica says:

    Dave goes on about Global Warming as a slam against FNC. HA HA Isn’t that really a slam against the MSM as they keep perpetuating that hoax on the world?

    Even the BBC had a story (the left leaning BBC) about how the earth has COOLED the last 11 years.

    There are suckers born every minute and sadly they are the 20% in this country who are LIBERALS.

  • ImNotBlue ImNotBlue says:

    Ouch… Dave… copy and pasting the same rant against Rupert Murdoch… with the same over spelling error each time. Ouch, buddy… Fail.

  • m m says:

    > As Juan Williams quoted today the Pew Study where FNC’s viewership is very diverse.

    Yes, diverse enough for 90% of them to vote McCain/Palin:
    http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/08/07/fox_news/index.html

  • sarainitaly sarainitaly says:

    m says:
    October 13, 2009 at 6:02 am
    Yes, diverse enough for 90% of them to vote McCain/Palin:

    Because FOX VETTED Obama. Because they reported on the negatives surrounding Obama. Because they didn’t paint Obama as the second coming. Because they pointed out Obama’s dismal voting records, and lack of experience, and habit of voting present.

    Perhaps if more gay people watched FOX they wouldn’t be feeling so neglected, and lied to now, by Obama.

  • Contrarian_Libertarian Contrarian_Libertarian says:

    Well, I personally make a point to stay away from all TV news as much as I can. I’ve found the Internet to be a far better vehicle for getting news — because I can tailor it to my own interests…as well as get a diversity of viewpoints.

    Of course Fox News is a right-biased organization. And of course most of the rest of them are left-biased organizations. Who cares? What I object to is the pretense (from any of them) that they’re objective, fair, balanced, etc. while others are biased.

    I certainly don’t mind agenda-oriented commentary…so long as there’s no pretense about where it’s coming from. And I don’t think the idea of a “structured” (ie, statutory) balance is a good one. In fact, it’s probably unconstitutional.

    But why doesn’t everybody in media just take off their masks? They can disparage the Glenn Becks or Keith Olbermanns all they want: at least those guys are honest about who they are and what they think.

  • ImNotBlue ImNotBlue says:

    Don’t waste your time, Sara. “M” has one study, with one fact in it, and he likes to repeat it over and over and over and over again. It doesn’t matter how many other studies come out, it doesn’t matter what other facts show… he’s got one glimmer of “see, I’m not a lunatic,” and he’s going to hold it tight. Even at the risk of looking like a dope.

  • If you would like to comment, please login or register:

    » Login » Register

    » Or connect with your Facebook account:

    Bret Baier Keeps Pres. Obama On Track In Combative Fox News Exclusive Interview

    video

    The first part of the much-anticipated Fox News exclusive interview between Bret Baier and Pres. Barack Obama took place at the top of Special Report, and although it couldn't be viewed as contentious, there was so much interrupting it caused Baier to acknowledge the tactic at the end of the interview. Here's a breakdown, and video:

    Joe Biden At The Radio & Television Dinner: As Entertaining As You’d Hope

    video

    Who told Joe Biden he'd be performing at the Chucklehut tonight? It's been awhile since the VP notorious for misspeaks and off-color jokes was allowed to go off-book, and tonight he got a whole 13 minutes on stage at the annual Radio & Television Correspondent's Dinner to hang himself by. And boy did he use every second of it. Cue the music!



    © 2010 Mediaite, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives | Dan Abrams, Founder | Hosting by Datagram | RSS