An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

It’s the White House Versus Fox News’ Chris Wallace

The most notable fact about President Barack Obama’s Sunday morning media blitz has been that he is making the rounds of the networks’ news shows — except Fox News.

This has led Fox News’ Chris Wallace to go after the White House for being a bunch of crybabies and being thin skinned. But if Wallace expected a sudden invitation from the White House — he is wrong. He has been met with a declaration from a White House official that Fox could get a Presidential news visit in the future but that the “whining” won’t do it — coupled with a comment noting how Fox has decided not to air Obama’s appearances and put on entertainment instead. The Raw Story notes Wallace’s comment today:

“Every president is thin-skinned, but I wonder whether this administration, this White House, has a particular problem with criticism,” Wallace said.

And the White House response?

“We figured Fox would rather show So You Think You Can Dance than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told ABC News. Earnest was referring to the TV show FOX TV broadcast September 9 instead of the president’s speech.

“Fox is an ideological outlet where the president has been interviewed before and will likely be interviewed again,” Earnest told ABC. “Not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon.”

What we’re seeing is two moves at play here:

1. Fox News has become the hub for Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and others and de facto Ground Zero for the tali radio political culture which is now the Republican party’s dominant force.
Its non news network Fox has with great fanfare decided to pass on key Obama news events that other networks cover grudgingly, since telecasting Obama’s press conferences and speeches live cost networks big bucks in a time of decreasing network revenues. But even if not officially acknowledged as such Fox’s highly publicized-in-news-reports noncoverage has been a political statement on Fox’s part — a signal to Republicans in its viewership that it is sending a message to Obama and to and the White House. NOTE: The other networks could soon get tired of having their schedules interrupted and balk as well. But the context for their decision will be seen as different than Fox’s.

2. Obama and the White House are clearly responding by making a decision that its response will be to isolate Fox from the rest of the news media and also from some others in the Republican party. Today he went on all of the networks (even Univision) and will be on David Letterman on Monday. He also made a point to appear on the conservative Michael Smerconish Program because Smerconish — one of the talk show hosts whose program doesn’t consist of demonization of rip and read RNC talking points. So Obama can’t be accused of only going on progressive talk shows (the way Vice President Dick Cheney seemed to only go on talk radio political culture conservative talkers’ shows and Fox News). Obama and the White House are making their statement, too: that Fox News is ideological in a blantant kind of way and they’ll deal with mainstream networks, ethnic-audience networks, and conservative talkers who aren’t in Sean Hannity/Glenn Beck mode.

This can escalate — but the real winner will the other networks and conservative talkers who may sway Obama to appear on their show if they seem to be ready to talk actual substance and even pepper him with hard, questions on health care and other issues, rather than ask Obama about his birth certificate, Reverend Wright or how long he has been a student of Karl Marx.

FOOTNOTE: This has not been a good week for Fox News’ image as a news organization rather than an ideological infooutlet. First came the controversy over the ad that wrongly stated the other networks missed the anti-Obama demonstrations in Washington. Next came Obama’s network appearance-fest. And now comes a White House comment not letting Wallace’s assertions stand but, rather, answering them yet leaving open the possibility of an appearance on Fox.

PREDICTION: If Obama appears on Fox he would most likely appear on O’Reilly’s Show. During the Presidential campaign, O’Reilly put on his journalist’s hat (he is an excellent mainstream journalist when he wants to be one) and interviewed Obama. It was a solid, good, professional interview. He recently indicated he now supports the public option – a sharp contrast to other Fox hosts who paint Obama’s and Democratic proposals as the destruction of the American health care system.

UPDATE: Here’s another Fox News-related incident that will raise eyebrows galore among many journalism professors.

  • A news organization reports the news they don't try to create it which is what FOX through Beck and Hannity have been doing. Being ideological is one thing but when FOX spends more effort creating stories than reporting on them it ceases to be a News organization. And why should Obama appear on FOX? Nobody who still watches it will ever approve of anything Obama says or does anyway.
  • imavettoo
    Mike Wallace's right-wing spawn calling Obama a crybaby seems to me to be, well, crybabyish.
  • DaMav
    Yes, Fox is really suffering from loss of credibility, being the only network to cover the Van Jones controversy in detail before his abrupt resignation. And exposing the ACORN perfidy before Congress overwhelmingly voted to defund the organization based on the tapes that Fox helped bring to light.

    Apparently the President doesn't watch Fox either. He just told Stephanopoulos: " I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money." Maybe he should listen to Fox so he becomes more aware of what is happening in the world. A lot of people should try doing that.

    As to the "journalism professors" eyebrows, I wonder what they think of Gallup's recent survey showing most Americans no longer trust the media to get the story straight, and the over 3:1 perception that the media is not critical enough of President Obama. Or the Pew Research Center's recent study showing that only 29% think the media gets the facts straight, and 18% think it deals fairly with both sides. Maybe they should be raising their eyebrows at the pathetic reputation of journalism when as Jon Stewart put it (paraphrase) "some guy in his grandmother's chinchilla coat" scooped all of them on a scandal of epic proportions.
  • Leonidas
    What a bunch of crybabies in the White House. This is the same thing Helen Thomas warned about and went after Obama for.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9WjX9oFmjE

    The Obamaganda machine is running on high.

    Less talk more details please Mr. President. The Campaign was over in November.
  • SteveK
    Actually the title of this thread has it backwards it's "Fox News’ Chris Wallace Versus the White House" NOT "the White House Versus Fox News’ Chris Wallace"... Wallace and Fox News started it and now they're trying to spin it into something that it isn't.

    Nicole Belle over at Crooks and Liars nailed it with: Chris Wallace Whines That The White House Are A Bunch Of Crybabies. Look In The Mirror Lately, Chris?
    Let me make it easier for you and the rest of the Fox crew, Chris. Obama has tried reaching out to you. Remember the interview he did with you over Rev. Wright? Your editorial department (read Mr. Ailes) decided that even if Obama reached out, that wouldn't stop your insinuating of his Otherness constantly.
    Who you going to believe... Fox News or your lying eyes? Follow the link above and then come back and tell us what 'your lying eyes' said.
  • mlhradio
    Fake and Staged: Fox Comedy Channel producer Heidi Noonan cheerleading the crowd at the recent little tempest-in-a-teapot demonstration:

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909180037
  • Almoderate
    Actually, Fox News wasn't the group to "expose" ACORN. It was done by an independent group of people with hidden cameras. Fox showed those tapes at the same time as everyone else. The only thing Fox News did differently was spin wild conspiracy theories for months at a time so that when something DID eventually stick to the wall, they could come back and say, "I told you so."

    Regarding O'Reilly... I have to agree with you on that one, Joe. I thought that was one of the best (if not THE best) interview of Obama during the entire campaign. It makes me sad, though, that we don't see that side of Bill-O more often.
  • mlhradio
    Tons and tons of numbers for everyone to chew on:

    http://people-press.org/report/543/

    It's the latest (Sept. 13th) Pew Research poll on how the public views the mainstream media in America. In particular it shows how the viewers of the Fox Comedy Channel view America so much differently from mainstream America. Check it out.
  • StockBoySF
    If Fox is so fair and balanced (or have they dropped that these days?) then why don't they show presidential speeches and let their viewers decide for themselves what the president and Dems are saying?

    I suppose Fox is afraid to show the president's speeches because he is so calm, which is in stark contrast to the raving loonies at Fox. The best way for Fox to be discredited is if they do show the president's speeches unfiltered, followed by Fox's angry commentary.

    I watched Obama on a CNN interview. When John King asked Obama about Joe Wilson's "You lie" outburst Obama said something like, shouting at politicians "is as American as Apple Pie." Obama didn't demonize Wilson or the Republicans at all during the interview, which covered a wide range if issues from the economy, healthcare and of course WIlson's childish outburst.

    The closest thing Obama said about the Republicans was when John King asked Obama about Mitch McConnell's statement, "We're winning on healthcare". Obama simply replied, "They said that during the campaign last year" (or something very close). Obama didn't even mention the word "Republican".

    I love the response from the White House. Obama can't win with Fox. Didn't Fox criticize Obama for not taking enough part in the pirate incident off of Africa a few months ago? And when it came out that Obama was actively involved, didn't Fox then say that Obama murdered teenagers (the pirates) who just wanted to go home?

    Obama shouldn't waste his time on fantasy news channels.
  • kathykattenburg
    Maybe Pres. Obama wanted to be interviewed by a journalist.
  • elrod
    I'm sure Fox News will play up the conservative victim complex to great ratings.
  • It is gamesmanship -- has been since the primaries. The Obama administration won this face-off, since Wallace decided to focus on it so much and act like a child. I'm sure that there was a reason they had an ACORN rep on. It's just petty. While it will appeal to the several hundred viewers Fox News Sunday has (and it is few, despite it getting free advertising via talk radio every week), others will see it for what it is: whining.

    I think this is a good strategy for the administration. FNC tries to walk the line and its viewers support that, but I think marginalizing them in the correct thing to do.

    It's similar to what is problematic with Rassmussen. They over sample a particular part of the population. And as others have noted, that part of the population is small, but gets a lot of hands up from FNC.
  • DLL83
    I think both sides are acting somewhat juvenile. Fox shouldn't be surprised that Obama wouldn't want to talk to them after the lack of respect they've shown (I'm referring to the personal attacks, not so much the legitimate opposition). I suppose Obama figures he has more to lose by talking to them than by refusing to talk to them. I have to agree - it would be a little too risky. Part of me, though, feels like the President should be willing to confront the opposition. I admit I would sure love to see Obama interviewed by Glenn Beck. If nothing else, it would be very entertaining.
  • An interview by Glenn Beck? Really? While it might be entertaining for some, I think it would probably consist of the president defending himself against flimsy allegations and wild conspiracy theories.

    Either that, or Beck would start by crying about his surgery and then ask the president why it happened to him.

    Beck is not serious. That a dying paper media is latching onto him is not surprising. The stupidest thing President Obama could do would be to agree to be interviewed by a former DJ or sportscaster, unless it was about music or sports.
  • kritt11
    Remember how discredited CBS was after Dan Rather's fiasco? Low standards of journalism has consequences for the network that airs it---

    Fox is reaping what its sown for the last 8-9 years.
  • FlowerHappy
    Oh yeah, Fox TV he slips in there. Someone quickly reading the article obviously is not going catch that he switched channels on us, one of the twitters already misunderstood it, and that Fox NEWS the channel we are talking about through the entire article, DID air the Presidents speech, and every other speech, press conference, burger run, stream line cabinet meeting, etc. the Presidents has had. So you want to talk about misleading…
  • FlowerHappy
    In response to the first comment by Mr. Ron Beasley, respectfully sir, there is nothing wrong with having a couple of shows on that are geared to one side. It is better than MSNBC who have no shows for the other side. All liberal, all day. And mean nasty, namecalling, shows. As for Beck, he bags on Republicans just as much as Democrats, he is a Liberatarian.
  • FlowerHappy
    i am going to have to cut this one up too, but bear with me sir,

    As far as “creating stories” are you kidding me. Which ones. I can name several, daily on MSNBC. How about the one showing a man with an automatic weapon slung over his shoulder, and the MSNBC anchors saying something like, “here at a town hall meeting on health care right wing activists, and anti-Obama “people”, carring automatic weapons right outside where the president is speaking,” and of course a comment to racism.
  • FlowerHappy
    They then spliced it and cut to the anchors again. When you watch the whole video however, as it pans up to the face of the person, he is a young African american man, very handsome, who is very well spoken, I know because he is interviewed. He is hardly a racist. Nor is he a right-wing extremist.
  • FlowerHappy
    But of course MSNBC leaves that out, implying he is white. He just happens to disagree with Obama on some issues, like banning our right to bare arms. So who is making up stories?? To be honest this one even surprised me. I did not think the liberal networks would go this far as to actually cut an interview to hid the race of the actual person, to lie about the content. Wow.
  • FlowerHappy
    i just think some are stirring up the fire, and reporting lies and bad blogs on purpose to make us all fight more. they want war. we all need to just take a deep breath, stop the judging and name calling, realize we are not always going to agree on everything, and that is okay. and try to work together as Americans, not black or white, rich or poor, just people. good night!!
  • JSpencer
    Of course the white house is exactly right. Fox has voluntarily thrown away their right to be treated as any sort of legitimate news organization. I'm sure there are any number of high school newspapers with higher standards.
  • DLL83
    The right to bare arms:

    http://www.countryhumor.com/larry/righttobarear...

    Sorry, I couldn't resist.
  • archangel
    dear flowerhappy
    I see that you are having trouble with posting comments? Please email tsteels, our web admin. Just click on his name in the masthead on the home page and he will help you.

    Thanks.
    Dr.E
    TMV editor
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC