What is White House and Obama's Fox News End Game?
It has been an interesting and puzzling couple weeks watching the White House communications office at work. First, on October 11, Anita Dunn publicly rebuked Fox News on Howard Kurtz’ CNN show calling it the “research arm of the Republican Party.” Then, we learned Ms. Dunn counted Mao Zedong as a “favorite philosopher” and it seemed like a score was settled and everyone would move on. But the White House stepped up their attack on Fox News last Sunday by sending Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Senior Advisor David Axelrod on the morning shows to continue this confusing line of attack, that Fox News is not a “legitimate news organization” by White House standards. And even worse, President Obama then joined the fight.
This week, President Obama said Fox News was “operating basically like talk radio.” Missing that millions of Americans listen to and trust “talk radio,” this was meant as another jab at Fox’s credibility. Jake Tapper of ABC News courageously questioned Robert Gibbs on the White House anti-Fox policy. And now yesterday, the White House decided to try and ban Fox News from a briefing with Obama’s Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg. Entering into potentially unconstitutional territory, the White House press office did not expect what came next. The White House press corp united against this behavior and demanded Fox is included, or nobody goes. The White House relented. So the question today is, what is the White House end game here?
It escapes no viewers that there is a difference between commentators on Fox, such as Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly and their news gatherers and reporters such as Carl Cameron, Shepard Smith and Major Garrett. This point has been made repeatedly, and most people outside of the White House get it. Most Americans don’t judge NBC’s Brian Williams by how inappropriately Rachel Maddow acts, or how Chris Matthews gets a special feeling up his leg, or for Keith Olbermann being…Keith Olbermann. Americans are smart enough to separate news and commentary. But here are some other alternative theories for this odd, baffling, weird and bewildering attack on a news organization.
Press Conference Retribution: One popular theory that the White House seems to favor is that this is all because Fox’s Broadcast Network chose not to air the President’s non-news-making, fourth prime time press conference. Instead, Fox aired a ratings bonanza reality TV show and carried the President’s press conference on the news channel only. Let’s forget for a moment that most of the other networks probably wish they had made the same decision in hindsight. Even if the White House wanted to settle the score, ignoring the difference between the news and entertainment channels, wouldn’t a couple weeks of freezing out some hosts and quietly calling on them last in press briefings have made the point? Is that enough reason for this war on Fox? It’s doubtful.
Teach Other Media Outlets a Lesson: This theory is plausible. It’s possible the White House knows it will lose this battle with Fox but in a Machiavellian move, decided to wage the battle to show less powerful, and less resourced media members that if they try reporting on stories like ACORN, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, and Kevin Jennings they’ll get treated the same way. This theory holds well because it seems to be working. The other major networks and print outlets are, in large part, relegating the major scandals of the Obama Administration to the back burners. Fox News is left carrying the weight alone. Which in turn makes these stories seem like one network’s axe to grind.
A Publicity Stunt? Since Fox News is enjoying a rating bonanza, and the next interview they get with a Senior Administration Official will be must-see TV, maybe this was all coordin…nah, that’s impossible.
Make Every Other News Organization Look Managed: By attacking the news organization that has caused them angst, the White House is making the rest of the press corps seem well managed by Obama’s brass. Anita Dunn’s original tirade occurred on CNN. How does CNN feel that the White House is complaining about tough questions from another media outlet on their network, thereby implying that no such tough investigative reporting comes from them?
America expects the press corp to ask the White House and the President tough questions. America expects investigative journalism in the Woodward and Bernstein sense. Digging for stories, getting the facts and reporting them. This is systemic check and balance on the power of the Presidency and one of the primary reasons a “free press” was so important to the founders of our nation. And this is why the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) was created under President Wilson, specifically to keep the White House independent of deciding who is and who isn’t “legitimate” in their eyes. And this is why the WHCA is now uniting behind their colleagues at Fox.
Certainly no news organization wants to be next on the White House enemies list. But more importantly, no news organization wants to be exposed for being less investigative than another. Journalists take pride in their role as the “fourth estate” and the more Fox is called out for being a thorn in the side of the President, the more it is revealed that the rest of the press corps causes them no problems to begin with. All journalists are “research arms” of the public regardless of party, because if they’re not researching, who is? No White House should have a problem-free relationship with the press because no White House is perfect in every way.
So what does the White House get out of calling a news organization the “opposition?” Even Howard Kurtz who originally broke this story says: “...I question what the White House gets out of that.” Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik said this morning: “What it’s really about to me is the Executive Branch of the government trying to tell the press how it should behave. I mean, this democracy — we know this — only works with a free and unfettered press to provide information.”
So what is the end game for a White House bent on kicking Fox News out of the briefing room? The reasons listed above? A health care reform package that goes unread and unchallenged? A huge energy tax that goes unread and unchallenged? A scandal free administration? This not only misjudges Fox’s ability to weather these attacks but it misjudges a journalist’s instincts to not be considered pawns, to protect their colleagues, and to protect their constitutional rights.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Its no surprise that the communications director of our current administration is quoting Mao. I'll quote him myself:
" Why is the great union of the popular masses so terribly effective? Because the popular masses in any country are much more numerous than the aristocracy, the capitalists, and the other holders of power in society ...." It is clear that we have an extreme leftist... Maoist...Marxist...Socialist administration. The masses of society tend to be generally unread and don't follow the history of those societies that have tried the these extreme leftist principles.
Socialistic societies generally fail because they run out of wealthy people to finance their vision. We'll probably have to play this out with the current administration and hope to minimize the long term damage with replacement of the Young and in-experienced Democrats by those old... boring but experienced Republicans. Dunn just got so high on herself that she hit the radar and the unfortunate truth of her "real" self came out. I would think she would have been better at "double-speak"... to be the Communications Director... even if "temporary".
Here's a simple explanation: He doesn't like Fox, thus he's snubbing them.
I think Heritage fails to appreciate it's not the "news" section they care about (although the facts are slanted in a conservative way, no doubt, just like other "news" channels for their respective ideology) - they care about the paranoid schizophrenic rantings of people like Glenn Beck and the hyper-conservative ideology of Sean Hannity who tries to represent their appointees as endorsing statutory rape despite no evidence to prove it (who needs that though?). I suspect they could care less what Shepard Smith (who is probably the most moderate person on the channel), Bill O'reilly, or Greta Van Susteren promotes - it's the fact they have one extremely biased individual that deliberately misleads his audience and one person who should be subject to an involuntary psychiatric hold on a regular basis.
I could care less if they keep Sean Hannity, but Glenn Beck has go to go - that man is, in my opinion, on the very border of paranoid schizophrenia - and I'm almost not joking.
Compared to the very real fact that our White House is actively in an information war with a news outlet. This is ridiculous and detracts from the President's stature, while causing the rest of the news outlets to seem very much like an actual part of the government .
Are you really shrugging this off as fantasy? What ever happened to your critical thinking?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
that I already commented I thought this was whining and reflected badly on him (I could find the comment, but I think you commented on it already iirc).
I'm not sure what you mean by an information war , per-say. I don't really have a problem with any president trying to rebuke criticisms about him. My contention has always been Obama is thin-skinned and internalized the criticism on a personal level and is acting out like a child against a media outlet. I think of the situation more like someone not inviting a class mate to a birthday party because they don't like them, more than something like trying to "send a message" to other media outlets. Maybe I'm being naive, but I just don't think that's the case.
You can't stand Beck, yet you say nothing about Olbermann. And because you dislike Beck your logic says it is OK to lock out the Fox News Reporters. You have the same problem the White House has - you don't want a free press, you want lap dogs and you are incapable of separating news reporting and opinion.
By your logic, because of Olbernmann's ranting, NBC reporters should also be ejected.
The White House will lose this stupid battle, if they continue it, because it is pointless and irrational and they are alienating a huge percentage of the population that watches Fox. Not only that, but independents, constitutionalists and intellignet democrats see the faulty logic here.
wasn't about MSNBC. Why would I bring up something unrelated? I have no idea if Olbermann believes in conspiracies anyway, I hardily ever watch him. He bores me too much to listen. I'd assume he'd be in the same realm as Sean Hannity on the liberal side.
It takes a special kind of person to be Glenn Beck crazy though.
true, but how can you agree to locking out news reporters on the basis of spin or craziness by an opinion talk show host? Especially so, when it isn't applied equally? It is the same thing that happens when a new reader emails me to say "I can't stand your opinions writer X, therefore I will never read your newspaper again". Eventually, these people will run out of real news to read.
I think the White House is jumping around on thin ice and it makes them look like a bunch of spoiled kids who will only play when you agree to their rules. So much for investigative reporting.
about two comments down to my next one, you'll see my view isn't really that different.
I disagree with your assessment that Fox News isn't just mostly opinion. The news media isn't straight news anymore, even when they try to frame it as such. There are very few publications that do that, and almost no cable stations that do that anyway (I'd contend CNN is the closest to being neutral, though they do have a noticeable liberal lean and / or a noticeable crazy lean in the case of Larry King). People like MSNBC and Fox are practicing an entirely new genre of journalism yet to be named. It's a bizarre combination of advocacy, opinion, gonzo, and yellow journalism wrapped up as "authentic" reporting. Combine this with the fact that many television journalists are incompetent morons who are either too stupid to call out the factual distortions or misleading statements of their guests or are so stupid they think their guests nonsense is true. I'm not sure which is worse.
I just hoppped over to Media Matters and found a clip where resident moron Gretchen Carlson decided that on a "news" show, Fox & Friends, she would say "Maybe instead of calling it the 'consumer option,' Nancy Pelosi should call it the 'tax option'" ignoring how petty of an analysis that is, that's not straight journalism. That's yellow journalism + opinion journalism in one sentence. I could find countless examples. I could find countless clips of blatantly un-journalistic behavior among the Fox News "straight news" crowd. I just picked the first clip I saw from their "news." Unfortunately, the conservative counter groups I know of, Media Research Center and Accuracy in Media, don't update their site with any frequency and I'm not going to search through MSNBC clips to find a counter-example. I'll just assume a similar example could be found of un-journalistic behavior occurring from whoever their resident moron is.
My point is, cable news isn't fair. Straight news on cable networks doesn't exist. It's all that bizarre combination I described above, the "opinion commentators" just make it more obvious.
On another matter, I see nothing wrong with criticism of an organization that houses irresponsible political commentators. Calling what you do "opinion journalism" doesn't give you immunity from harsh criticism for: misunderstanding basic facts; reflecting incorrect academic knowledge (most common in science and economics); propping yourself up as a false expert when you don't know what you are talking about; deliberately misleading your audience; and / or just fabricating information either from lack of fact-checking or just because you feel like making something up today.
I agree that the president should let Fox News do whatever craziness they want and he shouldn't try to restrict access, but I have no problem with him calling out their garbage and being a harsh critic of their deception (the same way Bush did with NBC on their garbage).
Anyway, the decline in media hurts this democracy . When the news media practices the bizarre combination I describe and attributes expert status to an issue such as economics to a random reporter at the Wall Street Journal or, even worse, a random blogger - we are bound to have a misinformed electorate (which we do).