Dick Polman (a liberal Democrat who writes for the Philadelphia Inquirer) thinks President Obama's war on Fox news is both foolish as well as "tactically stupid" and he explains why:
1. Going after Fox serves only to elevate Fox, making it appear that Fox is on an equal footing with the White House. Every president gets unfavorable press coverage; lashing out at the press generally makes a president looks small. In this instance, Fox winds up looking bigger. There's no need for Obama to do that, because he's the one with the biggest megaphone. His last speech to Congress drew 32 million TV viewers, according to the Nielsens. His last appearance on CBS' 60 Minutes drew 10 million viewers. Glenn Beck, on Fox, typically gets 2.2 million; Sean Hannity, 2.1 million. Why go to war with Fox, which only boosts its profile and plays right into the hands of Fox chief Roger Ailes - the ex-Nixon aide who thrives on this kind of pugilism?
2. Speaking of Nixon, the attacks on Fox merely serve to make Obama look Nixonesque. Which is hardly Obama's preferred image. Back in '69, Nixon sent forth his vice president, Spiro Agnew, to wage frontal war against CBS and the other "nattering nabobs of negativism," and it made that president look petty and vindictive. In fact, if George W. Bush had waged the same kind of frontal war against MSNBC, the odds are high that much of the Washington commentariat would have accused him of trying to intimidate the press and despoiling the First Amendment. They would have assailed him as petty and vindictive. Is Obama less so? Or is he getting a pass from most pundits simply because his chosen target is Fox?
3. The war on Fox is an unnecessary public distraction. Obama has a lot on his plate already, most of it very substantive - Afghanistan, health care, the economy, climate change, stuff like that - and his smartest play is to keep his eye on the ball...rather than try and make a big fuss out of an old story about how Fox is conservative.
Well, yes, this does make the president look small, and Nixonian. And yes, he is getting a pass simply because his target is Fox.
As to whether the war on Fox is an "unnecessary public distraction," I think it is most likely a public distraction, but whether it's unnecessary depends on who needs the distraction, and why. Axelrod, Dunn and company obviously think it's a necessary distraction or else they wouldn't have started the war.
the administration is doing the impossible -- offending the mainstream press and forcing some of Fox's toughest critics to ride to its defense. Nice work, fellas.
"If Fox News was running for office, it would have to list President Obama as an in-kind contributor."
Hmmm....
This couldn't be another one of those publicity stunts, could it?
I know it sounds fantastic, but the evidence is accumulating.
posted by Eric on 10.22.09 at 05:09 PM
Comments
Greetings:
Back in my days studying psychology, there was a bit of humor about a patient being asked what he saw in a 17x11 Rohrshach inkblot. "A foot," he replied. "Where?" asked his analyst. "Down in the extreme lower right."
There's something in Barack Who'sVain Obama's personality that lends itself to totalitarianism. It is difficult for him to admit failure or accept criticism as valid. When the planets align for him, the issue goes quickly down the media's memory hole. When they don't, as when he has now attacked the media's primary religion, he is greatly nonplussed. He is just not good at imagining himself (and his religion) coming in second in any contest, no matter how many times (think foreign policy of late) it happens. Eventually, as the pressure of repeated disappointment builds, his totalitarian persona will emerge more fully.
That being said, I also believe that there is an element of what my favorite Platoon Sergeant used to call "teaching the teachable". What he actually said was "Teach the teachable and get rid of the rest". I think that President Obama's Fox attack is probably more aimed at the rest of the media than at Murdoch and Ailes. I'm guessing that those two can be stubborn about something like this, the family business. The rest of the media can read the tea leaves and make use of an opportunity to avoid the near occasions of "sin".
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Greetings:
Back in my days studying psychology, there was a bit of humor about a patient being asked what he saw in a 17x11 Rohrshach inkblot. "A foot," he replied. "Where?" asked his analyst. "Down in the extreme lower right."
There's something in Barack Who'sVain Obama's personality that lends itself to totalitarianism. It is difficult for him to admit failure or accept criticism as valid. When the planets align for him, the issue goes quickly down the media's memory hole. When they don't, as when he has now attacked the media's primary religion, he is greatly nonplussed. He is just not good at imagining himself (and his religion) coming in second in any contest, no matter how many times (think foreign policy of late) it happens. Eventually, as the pressure of repeated disappointment builds, his totalitarian persona will emerge more fully.
That being said, I also believe that there is an element of what my favorite Platoon Sergeant used to call "teaching the teachable". What he actually said was "Teach the teachable and get rid of the rest". I think that President Obama's Fox attack is probably more aimed at the rest of the media than at Murdoch and Ailes. I'm guessing that those two can be stubborn about something like this, the family business. The rest of the media can read the tea leaves and make use of an opportunity to avoid the near occasions of "sin".