Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
Author Bio:
Pulitzer Prize winner Clarence Page began his career in journalism as editor for the Middletown Journal and Cincinnati Inquirer, and received his ...
Read more about By Clarence Page, Tribune Media Services.
Pulitzer Prize winner Clarence Page began his career in journalism as editor for the Middletown Journal and Cincinnati Inquirer, and received his ...
Read more about By Clarence Page, Tribune Media Services.
Obama Outs Fox, but Shows a Flaw
By Clarence Page, Tribune Media Services
Surely President Obama and his advisors don't really think that their
feud with Fox News will do anything but enhance the cable network's
viewership. A deeper problem is what the flap over Fox reveals about
Team Obama: They still seem to be more comfortable with campaigning
than governing.
I'm not happy about that. It does not fill me with glee to see Fox News star Sean Hannity joyfully replaying Obama's 2004 come-together speech about how we're "not red states or blues states" but "the United States of America" and asking where is Obama's promise now?
I don't agree with Hannity on much. He's only a tad more serious-minded as a news-clown, in my grumpy view, than his stable-mate Glenn Beck. But, as much as my wife might run from the house when she hears me say it, Hannity's right on this one.
Sure, it is disingenuous for right-wing pundits to accuse Obama of dividing the country, considering the five-star job they have done in turning us against each other. But if Obama is being judged by a different standard of civility, it is a standard that he set for himself. He promised to bridge Washington's culture wars, not fire them up.
That's why it was disappointing to hear what every administration does sooner or later, blame media for their problems. White House communications director Anita Dunn threw down the gauntlet calling Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Senior adviser David Axelrod and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel offered similar views and urged other media not to be led around by Fox's lead on any stories.
Obama defended his team while also noting that he didn't spend much time thinking about Fox. Right. So why talk about it in such harsh terms? Irresistible as it may feel to lash back at media, when powerful people lash back at the media who cover them, they only make the media look sympathetic. They boost their adversary's audience with curiosity seekers who wonder what all the fuss is about.
They also provoke a classic reflex: Other media and pundits from all sides circle their -- our! -- wagons in solidarity, even when our embattled brothers and sisters make us feel like holding our noses while we defend it.
In fact, Fox is what their defenders say it is, not a political organization but a news operation. It just happens to have some strong right-wing voices like Beck and Hannity who also happen to be two of their biggest audience attractions. Such phenomena were forecast in the movie "Network" in 1976. Back then the idea of a half-deranged demagogue set loose on a national audience for the sake of ratings still sounded far-fetched. These days the movie looks almost like a documentary.
But, love Fox or hate it, it is a major news channel. Fox's credibility got a boost from two recent scoops that eventually caused other media to play catch-up: They hounded "green jobs" czar Van Jones into resigning, mainly because years earlier he signed a loony 9/11 "truther" petition, and their crusade against the poor people's activist group ACORN, famously assisted by two young conservative freelance undercover reporters.
So the White House is pushing back. Their real goal: Raise questions with other media so they'll double-check anything they hear on Fox before they run with it. Try to isolate and marginalize Fox's voice. Cut off Fox's influence before it blossoms into the rest of the mainstream media.
It's the sort of strategy that pops up when you're in campaign mode, a mode to which Obama's team is intimately familiar. But there also comes a time to ignore the yammering from the press box and pick up the olive branches of negotiations, compromise and reconciliation that can bring opposing factions together.
That was the big take-away in Sen. Lamar Alexander's thoughtful speech last week. The Tennessee Republican, who worked for President Richard Nixon, cautioned Obama against creating a Nixon-like "enemies list" of media, industry or congressional adversaries. That's a wise warning, even if the "list" in Obama's case appears to have only one name on it.
Hardball has its place. Obama doesn't have to cave in to his adversaries to get things done. But his inner circle could use the pragmatic, independent, old-school voice of, say, Ronald Reagan administration veterans like David Gergen, enlisted by Bill Clinton's White House, or Colin Powell, who has informally advised Obama.
Every president needs campaign experts. But every president also needs people who know how to slip off to the private meeting and bring leaders together in ways that also bring the country together. That's the change we're still waiting for.
========
E-mail Clarence Page at cpage(at)tribune.com, or write to him c/o Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, NY 14207.
(c) 2008 CLARENCE PAGE DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
This news arrived on: 10/25/2009
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
10-26-2009 17:40
JCE wrote:
I am dealing with the facts, you are dealing with allegations, which have usually been proven to be false. Of course the nation is looking at it. There is a vendetta against ACORN, for the reasons you refuse to acknowledge, registering millions of legitimate voters, mostly democrat. Have they done wrong? Probably. The media is making it look that way. I am waiting for real proof, real convictions, but I am not defending them. Only defending the facts.
ssss If you had actually watched some of the other channels enough, you would notice that MSNBC actually has more conservatives on it, and actually questions Obama, and says he is wrong on a number of things. They actually cover more left and right points of view, and bring on legitimate people from both sides. Fox is famous for one side, and many things that are very important you will only hear on MSNBC, and never Fox. Case in point. The truth about ACORN legitimately registering millions of democrat voters, which is the real reason behind the vendetta against them. You can find dirt on about anyone, the question is, how much effort are you willing to put into making them look bad. In the case of ACORN and the right, a whole lot. Another case in point is the organizations behind the astroturf tea baggers and such. Fox sure doesn't tell you who is on the boards, and who the founders are, and where their money comes from. It reads like a whos who of huge corporate sponsors, far right extremists, and a ton of money, people who have been doing this for years, and in many such phony organizations. When you do fact checking on Fox, and then on MSNBC, one fact is obvious. You catch Fox in a whole lot of lies, whereas with MSNBC, you find a lot of facts. And some of those facts don't put a good light on either the right or the left. That is the closest thing to balance the media has, and Fox is the opposite. You rarely get reputable people on Fox at all. Tells a lot about its loyal following.
ssss If you had actually watched some of the other channels enough, you would notice that MSNBC actually has more conservatives on it, and actually questions Obama, and says he is wrong on a number of things. They actually cover more left and right points of view, and bring on legitimate people from both sides. Fox is famous for one side, and many things that are very important you will only hear on MSNBC, and never Fox. Case in point. The truth about ACORN legitimately registering millions of democrat voters, which is the real reason behind the vendetta against them. You can find dirt on about anyone, the question is, how much effort are you willing to put into making them look bad. In the case of ACORN and the right, a whole lot. Another case in point is the organizations behind the astroturf tea baggers and such. Fox sure doesn't tell you who is on the boards, and who the founders are, and where their money comes from. It reads like a whos who of huge corporate sponsors, far right extremists, and a ton of money, people who have been doing this for years, and in many such phony organizations. When you do fact checking on Fox, and then on MSNBC, one fact is obvious. You catch Fox in a whole lot of lies, whereas with MSNBC, you find a lot of facts. And some of those facts don't put a good light on either the right or the left. That is the closest thing to balance the media has, and Fox is the opposite. You rarely get reputable people on Fox at all. Tells a lot about its loyal following.
10-26-2009 10:21
ssssssssss wrote:
Maybe its because the rest of the "news" shows wont show the opposing view. CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC practically slobber over O. So what if one station has way more conservative guests. They arent invited on the other news shows because they dont want to show a opposing view. And what about Keith Oberman, its alright that he is a complete left loony but Glen Beck or Hannity are opinionated so they arent real news. You people have such double standards its sickning.
10-26-2009 06:40
JDB wrote:
Politics as usual
Which proves that politics is politics and the team mentality persists and dominates in politics. If you are not a team player, willing to sacrifice principle for the advantage and the win of the team, you have no place on the team. It is the abandonment of principle that hurting everybody, the people, not just party affiliates. And, under fire and criticism we see that they are all politicians, that the intentions espoused during a campaign are not at all what is practicable when the machinations of government are to be contended with after election. The hypothetical "you would like" turns to the pre-determined "you will" after the reality of the machine eliminates virtual idealism. Maybe somebody ought to govern "by the books" instead of governing by the "wish list."
10-25-2009 23:13
old cowboy wrote:
To HHJ
In an earlier post I mentioned Hannity et. al. as opinion shows and that is fine. The thing I object to is the "News" shows are also biased in their selection of guests and concentrating on things that tend to support the ultra-right wing viewpoint.
10-25-2009 23:07
PER wrote:
HHJ,
With all due respect to you, (which is hard for me to do on the best of days)Fox News does nothing more than the editorialising of the news: note the grimaces on the faces of the news "reporters" when "reporting" on the views they disagree with. I mean, gee whiz, they give credence to such ignorant scanks (again, with all due respect) as Laura Ingraham and Anne Coulter. (I must admit that they were more palatable when the were a couple.)JCE: as always, you are right on target. But will the sheep-like disciples of Faux News take time to look into your views? Well, DUH!!
With all due respect to you, (which is hard for me to do on the best of days)Fox News does nothing more than the editorialising of the news: note the grimaces on the faces of the news "reporters" when "reporting" on the views they disagree with. I mean, gee whiz, they give credence to such ignorant scanks (again, with all due respect) as Laura Ingraham and Anne Coulter. (I must admit that they were more palatable when the were a couple.)JCE: as always, you are right on target. But will the sheep-like disciples of Faux News take time to look into your views? Well, DUH!!
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
 |
 |
View Clarence Page ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |
VideoSquares.com
