Why Obama is Right to Avoid/Ignore Fox News
Sep 21st, 2009 | 37 responses
Can you blame President Obama for “snubbing” Fox News yesterday?
Steve Benen: “Fox News spent months promoting last weekend’s right-wing protests in Washington, encouraging viewers to go register their outrage. And during the event itself, the Republican news network went a step further, encouraging the crowd to get louder once the cameras were on.” (HuffPo has more.)
This is a network that wants Obama to fail, that wants health-care reform to fail, and that is actively involved with the right-wing groups that are terrorizing the political culture — that, in fact, is helping to organize those groups, the tea parties and town-hall protests, using its megaphone to spew conservative venom, making it seem as if those groups are the all-American mainstream (in fact, they are but an extremist fringe).
At this point, what is the point of reaching out to Republicans? Obama has done enough of that already — and all it has gotten him is opposition and obstructionism, which he would have gotten anyway.
No, what Obama needs to do is to talk directly to the American people, not through the distorting partisan prism of Fox News, as well as to Democrats, in an effort to bring them together, at long last, to pass meaningful reform. He is doing that, and he is doing well, and so what if Fox News, ever unfair, ever unbalanced, gets ignored in the process?
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
37 Responses to “Why Obama is Right to Avoid/Ignore Fox News”
Fox did not have the courtesy, the respect, to broadcast the President's address to a Joint Session of Congress.
I think it is entirely proper for the President to reciprocate.
“No, what Obama needs to do is to talk directly to the American people, not through the distorting partisan prism of Fox News,”
Let me guess, Fox News will just play the victim again.
Say you have two boxers about to square off in the ring. Boxer A, has done nothing but talk up his opponent's prowess and skill. Boxer B, has done nothing but talk down his opponent's prowess and skill and has done so in a a very personal manner. Regardless of the tactics, does Boxer A look strong by refusing to step into the ring? Just a thought….
Fox News long ago abandoned any attempt at being fair source of news. Although maybe I'm wrong to think they ever were one in the first place.
PWT,
Would you consider Bush a coward for never speaking to directly to The Nation?
The President, any President should make an attempt to be president of all the people, including those who disagree with him. By appearing on Fox he would do what he has always done well, put himself above the competition by not giving in to the pettiness and snubs. Snubbing them back only gives them one more thing to rant about…as we are now seeing.
So, notwithstanding Fox failing to carry his address to the joint session and notwithstanding Fox's overt fomenting of opposition at the 9/12 event, he should have appeared on Fox, even if only to call them on what they are doing.
Btw, the video of the Fox producer working up the crowd, then sheepishly ducking under the camera when she realized she was being filmed says more than any words in any column can about Fox's surrepticious involvement in promoting and stirring up these protests.
It depends on the context, but, more than likely, I would consider Bush a coward for not speaking directly to The Nation.
What is important to remember is that this was to be a one on one interview, not a news report. Mr. Obama has all along been portrayed as bright and articulate and one would therefore assume that if he is as bright as is claimed and that disagreement with his policies is fueled by 'misinformation' that he would jump at the chance not only to rebut the false information but also to put one of his 'enemies' in their place. Not doing so is not a projection of strength. If Mr. Bush did the same, I would come to the same conclusion.
Alright… fair enough.
One bit of info to throw out there, Obama has gone on Fox and faced O'Reilly before.
D.E,
I was not aware that Fox did not carry the Joint Session speech. I was working that evening and couldn't catch the speech, so I had to watch it online when I got home. Is that true?
If so, then I don't blame the president.
I agree with Tidbits above though. His not going on Fox weakens his position and makes the independent crowd feel that he doesn't want to face real questions. By only going on the MSM, he appears to prefer candy-coated and unthreatening questions. The MSM has been doing that since his campaign began.
However, I think it probably goes deeper than that. He wanted to solidify his base behind things prior to a big push to get the healthcare bill through (whichever bill surfaces). His base doesn't watch Fox news.
Just a thought.
Simple reason Obama ignores Fox, he might have to answer tough questions and be called out more for dodging them.
Plain and simple.
Thats a non point, Fox News carried it, since that was the case Fox didn't need to, instead while their news affiliate carried the speech they were able to do what businesses do and went for market share.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_speec…
Facts trump spin.
“Fox did not have the courtesy, the respect, to broadcast the President's address to a Joint Session of Congress.”
I keep hearing this complaint and I keep thinking “So?” I assume that decision was made purely for ratings. I can think of no reason why a network should be compelled to show a speech to congress, not America, not the people, but the Congress. Also there is a difference between fox news and the fox network. Get a grip.
JD:
That's what my wife tells me, I don't watch Fox (anymore).
I am sure someone will tell us if I am wrong.
In spite of what some are saying, I don't think the President is “afraid” of going on Fox or of facing “tough” questions.
I also believe, from all the vitrol and hate that I see and hear, that no matter what he says, no matter whether he appears on Fox, no matter what, the President will not be able to change the attitude or minds of those who so intensely hate him.
Just a pesonal opinion. Nothing to write home about.
Can't speak for others but if he turns to the middle, becomes fiscally responsible, reaches out in a real way to conservatives and moderates with legislation and not just empty rhetoric, stands up to the Liberal wing of his own party on something other than his desire to continue the Bush expansion of executive power, stops stealing from taxpayers and future generations, and starts following the rule of law instead of some vague and partisan notion of “empathy”, he will get my support. Until then he is SOL in general, although I'll support him on those rare cases he is sensible and moderate.
Fox News is a joke.
MSNBC is a joke.
MSM in general is a joke.
They “report” on whatever they think brings in viewers. Their only purpose is to sell advertising. Fox would flip liberal if there was more money in it. MSNBC would go conservative if Fox wasn't already there.
I wonder how many americans saw the President speak over the weekend? How many were even awake on Sunday morning?
Fox News is a oxymoron. I see no benefit to Obama in legitimizing what they do by treating them as an actual, objective, news provider.
Fox didn't carry the speech because
“Sept. 9 is premiere night for the new season of So You Think You Can Dance at 8 p.m., plus the first new episode of Glee since the Spring at 9.”
Shows of high intellectual content, no wonder something trivial like health care was avoided.
As far as Fox news, it was that great objective journalist, karl rove, who replayed the “you lie” comment and laughed about it. I'm not sure what reason you can use to make the case that the fox organization is “fair and balanced.” Cheer leading journalists and guffawing commentators, my idea of objective news coverage.
“The President, any President should make an attempt to be president of all the people”
Agree. But someone forgot to inform all those Fox viewers, Rush Limbaugh listeners, Glenn Beck lovers, Tea Partiers, etc., etc. who proudly and loudly claim: “That Nazi, Sociaslist, *&$@#, etc, etc.is not my president.”
D.E.,
Judging from the rest of the comments, you and I were on different pages. Apparently, Fox NEWS did carry the speech. Fox network did not. That doesn't really matter. If ABC had it's own ABC News Channel, I wouldn't expect them to carry it either.
As far as the Fox-hatin' goes. I give kudos to Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, and Bret Baier for totally unbiased reporting. There are few on the other networks that can match those three. The specialty shows (Beck, hannity, etc) are specifically biased conservative. However, as I've stated before, I don't watch ONE network. I watch them all, research my own facts, and form my own opinions.
JD
Thanks for double-checking me on Fox broadcasting the President's addres to Congress. As I said, I wasn't sure.
I had to smile a little when I read your “I give kudos to Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, and Bret Baier for totally unbiased reporting,”. because, in my opinion, they are some of the most biased reporters I have ever seen or heard. But, that's what is great about our country, we can have totally different opinions, and still are able to express them freely..
I do have to laugh out loud (not just LOL, or just
) every time I hear them proclaim, “Fox, fair and balanced.”
Great that you watch all networks, research your own facts, and form your own opinions—as we all should.
In other words, you'll support him as soon as he becomes a conservative republican…
Now THAT'S funny! I don't care who you are!
Wow! I've seen conservative news types (O'reilly, etc), liberal news types (Obermann, etc), and those three don't fit either side.
I'm amazed you think they're biased. You are actually the first person I've ever heard say that.
Oh well. As you said…. that's what's beautiful about our country.
We all have totally different opinions. We have the right to be correct (like me) or incorrect (like you).
LOL
Just kiddin.
You're a good sport, JD. We need more of that
Dorian
As I said in Joe's post below FOX is not a news organization it is an advocacy organization that spends more time creating news than reporting it. Roger Ailes made it clear when Obama won it would be FOX's mission to destroy his presidency.
Fixed it for you …
No, what Obama needs to do is to talk directly to the American people, not through the distorting partisan prism of ABC/CBS/NBC/MSNBC/CNN (known far & wide as the all things Obama Networks), as well as to DemocRATs, in an effort to bring them together, at long last, to pass meaningful reform. Not the pablum he has been peddling but real reform. Is he is doing that? Nope, so far all he's done is turn people off in large numbers with his same ole same ole speeches and “soaring” rhetoric.
What he is doing well is to continue to force independents to look at viable alternatives to the democRATs that they might have previously chosen.
Stevecan:
Do you think that it would be possible to, at least on this site, spell “Democrats” correctly?
Thank you
Leonidas, “Thats a non point, Fox News carried it, since that was the case Fox didn't need to..”
Even what you quoted shows FOX to be partisan, by your logic NBC didn't need to carry it since MSNBC did air it. What other major network refused to carry a Presidential speech to a joint session of congress before?
“The speech was carried by American news networks ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS and cable news channels. However, the FOX network chose not to carry Obama's speech, preferring to air So You Think You Can Dance and Glee instead.”
Nope, as soon as he becomes a moderate.
Nope it shows them to better better businessmen. Perhaps NBC chose to run it as well since MSNBC has pretty sucky ratings and get trounced by FOX NEWS pretty much every time. I have no doubt that FOX leans right, but that doesn't mean they diss the President by chosing to have their news afflitiate cover it and not give up revenue on the rest of their network to televise yet another Obama infomercial. Well, I guess Obama had to take up the slack caused when Billy mays died.
If you want to see left wing news watch Democracynow, otherwise you are watching different flavors of conservative news. Some are socially and others fiscally conservative but other than MSNBC(which is some weird mock left wing news source and kinda sux even worse than Fox since they make no sense) you are already watching conservative media as brought to us by the corporations. Fox is both socially and fiscally conservative but they do not speak badly of republicans unless they can “accidentally” put a D next to their name in the news scrawl(like they did to Foley). Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, and Bret Baier are actually as right wing as Jon Stewart is left wing and seeing as how he is the only guy that asked tough questions to the previous admin. why did Bush not go on the Daily Show for interviews? I know that sounds funny but we are whining about Obama going on everything but Fox when the previous admin. went almost exclusively on Fox, and received soft ball questions the entire time. All of the people on Fox use the “some people say” trick which is how they insert their opinions into the news which is why none of Fox, save maybe Shep Smith though he may pull the “some people say” trick and I have missed it, is news. Fox is purely opinion, opinion that is solidly repub to far to the right of repub's but it is right wing without doubt. They also JUST got caught red handed lying openly about other stations coverage and they even refuse to retract a blatant lie. SO just so I have this straight Rather should have been kicked out of news for not fully vetting his source and Fox can lie without repercussion because? Oh yea because you are republican and you just side with your side, sorry try again.
Leo-sorry thats not moderate unless a moderate for you is between Clinton and Bush, mine is between LBJ and Reagan which still makes Obama a pretty solid moderate. Clinton ran as a dem but he was a repub, just look at his record.
“MSNBC has pretty sucky ratings and get trounced by FOX NEWS pretty much every time”
Fox has chosen to defy liberal heterodoxy in the media (and been treated with hatred as a heretic in so doing) in order to fulfill a vast gulf created by liberalism in the media. MSNBC seems to have, if anything, “learned” the wrong lessons about this (or about the late rise in far-left talk radio out of its heretofore laughable non-existence) and tried to be farther to the left of an already-liberal media norm in order to be “edgy,” gain ratings, perhaps appeal to a younger crowd (of all ages, politically and likely developmentally speaking) to broaden its market, reverse a decline of “traditional” journalism, and gain a viewer base with years ahead of them (if they actually were sensible, that is). That Obama would deliberately snub Fox is no surprise, for that merely means he is doing what so many a liberal politician and other liberals of all kinds want to do, given how they feel about Fox (fear and loathing).
No, “Democracy Now” or “Counter[-]Spin” by FAIR [sic] does not define the only “liberal media.”
“Well, I guess Obama had to take up the slack caused when Billy mays died.”
They have to do _something_ to rescue their health care “reform,” and far be it from them to admit they're way too left of the public and that's what has led to growing public concern as well as their failure from sheer overreach when it comes to health care. Ghawd, that traveling Obama TV circus…
DLS-Just because they are to the left of you does not mean they are left wing. For instance I still consider William Buckley on the right but he looks like a Marxist compared to some of your views.
“For instance I still consider William Buckley on the right but he looks like a Marxist compared to some of your views.”
Maybe with health care “reform” will come optical equipment benefits and you can remedy that.
[...] Right or wrong … I think is a mis-phrasing, perhaps mistake or not is better, and yet I think it was in fact a mistake. Preaching to the choir, i.e., the watchers of the other networks, is has its purpose. Reaching across to the other side, also has a purpose and deciding it’s not worth the bother … is a mistake. [...]
[...] Right or wrong … I think is a mis-phrasing, perhaps mistake or not is better, and yet I think it was in fact a mistake. Preaching to the choir, i.e., the watchers of the other networks, is has its purpose. Reaching across to the other side, also has a purpose and deciding it’s not worth the bother … is a mistake. [...]
[...] Why Obama is Right to Avoid/Ignore Fox News [...]