The Obama White House recently decided that Fox News is biased and that it should be called out for its distortions and mistruths. White House strategists have apparently concluded that the Beck-Hannity-O’Reilly crowd is getting traction. Even though recent polls put Obama’s approval ratings over the 50% mark—the latest CNN poll put his popularity at 55%—the White House is growing increasingly concerned about the impact his opponents will have on major upcoming legislative proposals like health care, cap-and-trade, and the consumer protection agency. As a result, Obama will still do interviews on Fox, but his staff has clearly labeled the network media non grata.
Meanwhile, former vice-president Dick Cheney is continuing his crusade against Obama’s foreign policy, going so far as to label the president a “ditherer.” Cheney’s statements get wide media coverage, if only because they stand in such contrast with the reserve shown by former President George W. Bush. Again, the White House has reacted and taken to reminding voters about Cheney’s role in the last administration. Given Cheney left with a popularity index of less than 25%, the Obama people have taken to portraying him as the face of the Republican party. Since the inauguration, Obama strategists have been blessed to have Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and, once again, Dick Cheney as embodiments of the Republican party. Going after them seems to be working, too, as voter identification with the party is at 20%, its lowest point in 26 years. So far, their attacks have paid off. But is it the best approach in the long run?
Targeting a specific media outlet is always a risky venture—journalists have a solidarity that goes beyond the employer. Besides, the argument can be made that MSNBC is to the left what Fox is to the right. As for Cheney, the former vice-president lost his credibility in the rush to war in Iraq, the manipulation of intelligence behind the scenes, and the torture memos. Most see him as the sinister force behind the Bush White House. Still, he does have one card to play and it is the ever-present danger that a terrorist attack could take place on American soil under Obama’s watch.
The Obama campaign was successful because they stayed focused on the ultimate goal—to get Barack Obama elected. The goal of the Obama White House, on the other hand, is to be a successful administration. That means implementing healthcare reforms, including universal coverage, a public option, and an end to the excesses of the health insurance industry; making progress in the fight against climate change; instituting better protections for consumers in the financial sector; restoring America’s reputation in the world; ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; reducing the nuclear threat from Iran and North Korea; bringing the economy back to stable growth; and, finally, putting in place a plan to bring down the deficit and the debt. That is the transformational change people voted for. All this will not necessarily get done necessarily in a first term, but enough progress can be made to building a strong case for re-election. Add in the personal popularity of the president and you have to wonder why the White House feels the need to bother with Republican sideshows.
Print
Comment
No, you're not a bad person for engaging in the standard intellectual capitulation in order to conclude that they're all just as bad. That's what passes for critical thinking these days.
Oh good. I'm glad I'm still moral, but stupid.
Or maybe you're just tired?
The 'inherited mess' is a red herring – every time a government administration changes, that is the cry from from the new administration. But at some point you have to own it. Eight months into the Bush administration he inherited a mess when 9/11 hit (from years of the Clinton administration ignoring terrorist attacks on US interests from the first World Trade Centre bombing to the USS Cole to the embassy attacks in Africa) – but he owned it and went forward – you can argue about what he did in the subsequent years, but he took full ownership of his actions. Yes Obama inherited problems, but he has also added to them big time – from the second bailout that he oversaw, the health care reform, the apology tour, the tarring of opponents as domestic terrorists and/or racists etc. etc. etc. And many in the MSM except for Fox has supported him rather than assume a real role for journalistic to look at thing objectively.
I think CNN hit rock bottom when it fact-checked Saturday Night Live skit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7x-dzXVcOw
When did Maclean's hire Baghdad Bob?
So true. And that is such a funny line.
Why are Conservatives so arrogant?
"Why are Conservatives so arrogant?"
I don't know. Why?
Jolyon –because they are self righteous and lack curiosity . Sounds like Bush , Cheney , Limbaugh and Beck . Sorry about Beck . He`s just dumb!!
""Why are Conservatives so arrogant?"
To distract from how stupid they are.
As for "mistruths", like the Joe Kline article jarrid linked to, defenders of Fox ask for examples in the comments, and none are forthcoming.
So I will ask for an example here.
Just one.
It surely must be easy, given that there are so many of them.
One single news story about the Obama admin that wasn't true.
One.
"Just one."
How about hundreds?
http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/fox_news_chann...
There you go.
He'll never click through to a link that might challenge his world view.
Lemme dig up a couple for ol' Biff here:
1) Fox News falsley claims that Obama, as a child, attended a radical Muslim madrassa: http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/19/fox_and_frien...
2) Fox promotes the false "Obama refuses to place his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance" story: http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://www.foxnews.com... then makes it worse: http://crooksandliars.com/2008/08/06/foxnews-flip...
Hey Biff – you're welcome.
Thank you.
Obviously two pressing and important issues that affects all the world.
Any word on the all important issue of whether Obama uses floss or tape??? I'm sure that dastardly Fox news has cast aspersions on this important issue as well!!!!!
You be sure to get back to us on that.
As for acutual news stories, I guess you don't have anything yet.
Van Jones?
Acorn?
The amount of Obama's debt?
Afghan Issues?
Back to the tooth floss scandal I guess.
I'm getting worried about two things that Obama seems to be oblivious about.
One issue is that the skyrocketing debt Obama has created may result in reactions from the international community and other adverse reactions.
Other countries may drop the dollar as the default currency and they may in fact stop buying US treasury bills. But even worse, I suspect severe inflation down the road.
So much debt from Obama and so many dollars being printed by the fed has artificially propped up ecnomic activity at the expense of future generations and investors (but investors know this, so the value of the US dollar has been dropping). In the long run, this may cause peoples' savings to be evaporated away by run-away inflation.
The other issue is that he has reinflated the mortgage and financial bubble with his massive bailouts. House prices have been reinflated by the Fed buying mortgage securities. Banks have resumed their policy of creating massive leverage and flimsy securities that have the sole purpose of lining their own pockets while putting their institutions at risk. Nothing has changed.
Obama is lost in space on the economic file.
One issue is that the skyrocketing debt Obama has created
With all due respect, the debt pre-exists Obama by decades, and was actually nearly doubled by the previous administration. Perhaps you'd rather take issue with the deficit, which is also something he inherited by and large.
Obama quadrupled the deficit. Period. Above I said triple, but it's actually quadruple. Obama has already created as much debt in 10 months as Bush did in the last four years.
Here is your educational link for the day, I'm glad to be of service:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-...
Here's another picture for ya, just so that you won't make the same mistake again:
http://caseyresearch.com/images/Federal%20Deficit...
I know, it's hard to believe that picture is really true? It looks so crazy that Obama has done this. But it's true, the figures come form the Congressional Budget Office of the United States government and the White House.
Here's another picture for ya.
http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/d...
For the love of god, do you even read your own sources? The last two links openly include the author's speculation about unstated spending that Obama might be planning for 2009. They each added $500-$700 billion dollars to the official figures!
There's barely two months left in 2009. That's logistically impossible and absolutely silly.
A point of reference: here's the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projecting a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit for 2009, as of TWO WEEKS BEFORE Obama took office:
"The ongoing turmoil in the housing and financial markets has taken a major toll on the federal budget. CBO currently projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. That total, however, does not include the effects of any future legislation. Enactment of an economic stimulus package, for example, would add to the 2009 deficit. In any event, as a percentage of GDP, the deficit will most likely shatter the previous post-World War II record high of 6.0 percent posted in 1983."
THAT is your baseline for Obama's effect on the deficit. (Source: http://www.cbo.gov%2Fftpdocs%2F99xx%2Fdoc9957%2F01-07-Ou... target=”_blank”>http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2F” target=”_blank”>http://www.cbo.gov%2Fftpdocs%2F99xx%2Fdoc9957%2F01-07-Ou...
For the love of God, you again? LOL.
I find it hard to believe that you can actually defend, not only Obama's inability to improve the situation, but in fact Obama's severe worsening of the problem. On the other hand, coming from you, it's not hard to believe. The CBO revised that estimate by 650 billion thanks to Obama. What's a few hundred billion dollars? Nobody forced Obama to spend $700 billion on TARP. Yes, $700 billion. Nobody is forcing him to spend a trillion on health care. Yes, a trillion. The graphs don't lie. The figures are accurate. And they are shocking.
"Obama is lost in space on the economic file."
He is indeed. He doesn't have what it takes to lead America in these dangerous and uncertain times.
America's allies are puzzled by the U.S.'s withdrawal from world leadership.
Domestically, on the key file of our times, he's missing in action or to the extent he's taking action, he's making matters worse.
Americans apparently felt good about themselves for electing an "African-American", I mean he's half-white, his mother being whiter than snow, and his dad was not born in America, but let's not quibble here. I wonder if they feel so good now, knowing that the African-American they elected is a left-wing ideologue whose ideology prevents him from acting wisely in the challenging times in which we live.
He's a political disaster waiting to happen. It's all a matter of time.
The key file of our times being of course the dire economic straits that the U.S. finds itself in. Printing money will only make matters worse in the long run Barry.
Jarrid thinks he's actually talking directly to Barrack Obama.
Get some help, wingnut.
Learn how to spell.
"Besides, the argument can be made that MSNBC is to the left what Fox is to the right."
Because that argument could only be made in an atmosphere as devoid of integrity as, say, Fox News. I think Parisella is trying too hard to sound "reasonable" here to the fans of Fox News. It's simply not true.
An example of "intimidation" of a news outlet would be Nixon sending in the IRS to audit reporters who didn't toe the line.
What's happening here, despite Fox News' persecution complex, is the White House refusing to provide material for Fox News to distort. There have been no threats made.
The intimidation occurs when other msm outlets start to wonder what will happen if they report a story. Will they ban x news org like they did Fox for reporting something that Obama doesn't like. Americans now have a president who decides what is legitimate news and what isn't – which is against the first amendment but who cares about that.
Obama and his minions have just issued an offer the msm can't refuse.
Bullsh*t.
The American cable news scene is a circus sideshow of entertainment posing as journalism, but even there Fox News stands out as absurdly slanted. They are still free to report on whatever they want, but the White House isn't obliged to keep participating any more than Charlie Brown is obliged to keep trying to kick Lucy's football.
Incidentally, the latest manifestation of Fox' persecution complex ("Waaah! Mean old Obama is excluding us!") is turning out to have been a complete fabrication on the part of – wait for it – Fox News.
Fox's claim: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/white-...
The story unravels: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/wh-wer...
BTW: This would represent actual, more recent, intimidation of the press: http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28559
(Hint: it wasn't Obama declining interviews. And the MSM just laid back and took it)
It is not about Fox V White House, the issue is that WH has obligation to citizens to keep them informed. White House can't just willy nilly decide who it will and won't talk to (msm only, President has no such obligation to UFO Weekly)
And how did tpm become authority on incident? Why, they "dug into it". That convinces me alright, I am sure I'm not being spun at all.
If Bush did something similar he was wrong as well.
And how has the Obama White House failed in its obligation to keep citizens informed?
Of course the press needs to maintain an adversarial relationship with everyone it covers – look at its gross failure to do so in the buildup to the Iraq war. You'll never hear me argue against that. But Fox News' programming goes way beyond adversarial – while they claim impartiality ("We report, you decide"), they transparently push their agenda year after year.
I didn't present TMP as an authority on this incident (though they have a stellar reputation and a Polk award to back it up) but their piece did include a direct quote from a named White Housespokesman and an anonymous quote from another network who claimed their role in the matter was being distorted by Fox. Sheesh. Did you watch the Fox News clip that TPM linked to? Fox is clearly claiming that the White House deliberately left them out and that they only gained access through the manly efforts of their spokesman.
Given Fox's recent wall-to-wall victimization coverage, and their history of slanted reporting, it wouldn't surprise me at all if TPM's report were accurate.
As for Bush – did you read what I linked to? THAT is intimidation. It's not what Obama did, it's worse. It falls short of Nixon's sins, to be sure, but still represents a whole new degree of abuse of the press.
"t is not about Fox v White House, the issue is that WH has obligation to citizens to keep them informed. White House can't just willy nilly decide who it will and won't talk to (msm only, President has no such obligation to UFO Weekly)"
Since when do you make up the rules?
@Jarrid and all dyed-in-the-wool defenders of the madness, there is this from GAWKER:
'The more viewers Fox attracts, the more voters the GOP repels. And the more voters the GOP repels, the more viewers Fox attracts. The most important part of the dynamic is that Fox News has no interest in doing anything other than attracting viewers. It will continue to ride this wave of anger and resentment irrespective of what impact it has on the Republican Party until it stops making them money. And yes, Barack Obama’s popularity is dropping, and the bloom is beginning to come off the rose. But the GOP hasn’t seen a concomitant rise in popularity: Just yesterday it hit the lowest approval rating it has seen in a quarter century, according to the New York Times.'
So keep on keeping on, folks… it's working!
Not sure what your point is, there seems to be none. People here that disapprove of Obama are not necessarily Republicans.
I don't know what you mean by "lowest approval rating" when the GOP does not have control of neither the house, the senate, nor the presidency.
Anyway, if you look at the generic congressional vote, the GOP has been rising all year long.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/gen...
Sorry s_c_f
Your link failed, for me at least. I had hoped my meaning was clear.
I am passionate in my defense of people. Not rich people, or poor people. Not business people or labour people, Not rural people or urban people, not Alberta People or Ontario People. People like me. People like you. People who wish no harm on their neighbours. Where does your anger abide? Why do you hate your neighbours?
You do hate your neighbours, don't you?
Here's the corrected link –
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/gen...
Hate my neighbours? What are you talking about? Defense of people? You've completely lost me. I'm commenting on a blog site, and you seem to be somewhere completely different. You seem like a really negative person – try to get some sunshine.
John – Shortly after Obama became President, I predicted he'd only last one term. I based my prediction on Obama's left-leaning antecedents. The guy's radical left, fluked into the White House, and will be run out of there next election.
One year into his presidency, his poll numbers are tanking, turns out he's a divider, not a uniter. No surprise there at all for me or anyone who bothered to look at his background.
My prediction of a one-term presidency is on track.
"Wow . . . someone still living in the Obama Dazzle Zone."
Wow–you're still living in the Bush-Cheney Dazzle Zone. That's much more noteworthy.
Mr. Obama will be gone in 3 year's time.
Like the inept Jimmy Carter, he'll be a one-termer.
After next year's mid-terms be a lame duck.
And thus will end America's brief fling with a socialist dreamer.
What will his accomplishments have been? Well, he'll have won the Nobel Peace Prize.
They'll be talking about that one for years: how Mr. Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for accomplishing squat.
Jarrid :
In your dreams . You are really off the wall and believe the crap about socialism , nazism , birthers , Fox Noise , Tea Bag loonism ,Rush , Beck, Palin –yuk ! not too creative or too bright , Jarrid.
Two terms !
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The first amendment makes up the rules.
-The First Amendment says that people have the right to speak freely without government interference.
-The First Amendment gives the press the right to publish news, information and opinions without government interference. http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.as...
In the past month or two Glen Beck has dropped a tonne of bricks on ACORNS head, got two Obama appointees fired and is now focusing on senior white house official telling teenagers Mao is good role model. And then Obama Admin comes out says Fox is not real news station and they aren't talking any more.
Are I am supposed to believe these two events are not related? Obama is the boy who takes his ball home before the game's over.
Total red herring. The White House has done nothing to prohibit Fox News from saying anything at all.
Nothing.
For your amusement, here's a quote from Eric Boehlert, helping poor Jake Tapper understand why the White House might single out Fox News:
"For instance, here's an example of how the Fox News family isn't quite like ABC. Here's another another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another."
Go here for all 23 links. Follow a few of 'em, maybe pick a couple and discuss in the context of objective journalism: http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910210003
You, above: "Obama quadrupled the deficit. Period."
For Obama to have quadrupled the deficit he inherited, it would have to top $4.8B in 2009. Not even your most wildly inflated figures claim that.
The trillion dollars in health care he's discussing is over ten years, not per year.
And for your reference, here's Wikipedia on TARP: "The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector. It is the largest component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis."
2008. Obama wasn't inaugurated until January 2009.