Obama's foolish war of choice
The reasons why Obama shouldn't wage war against Fox News
Obama's foolish war of choice
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
In conversations this week, people have repeatedly asked me two questions:
1. How 'bout dem Phillies, huh?
2. Is Obama doing a smart thing by declaring war on Fox News?
My answer to the first question is obvious. Here's my answer to the second question:
No. The president is actually doing a very dumb thing.
As I mentioned here last Friday, "it's no mystery" why the Obama team would feel tempted to wage war against Fox News, given the network's track record. Indeed, top Obama players ramped up their frontal attacks on Sunday and Monday, vowing that "we're going to treat them like we treat an opponent" because, in their view, Fox is merely "opinion journalism masquerading as news." That description sounds about right, but here's an even better characterization, courtesy of Northeastern University journalism professor Alan Schroeder: "Fox News is an entertainment network that employs the conventions of journalism to promote a right-wing political ideology."
But so what? Just because Fox is Fox, it doesn't necessarily follow that the Obama team is smart to go on the attack. Quite the contrary, it's tactically stupid:
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.
Maybe Obama would be wise to keep these four aphorisms in mind:
Harry Truman once said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Every president takes heat, much of it unfair. Deal with it, it's part of the job description.
Dwight Eisenhower once said, "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk." Because you'll just wind up smelling like the skunk.
Barack Obama himself said on Feb. 3, "I don't always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that's part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we're not supposed to all be in lock step here..."
And as yours truly always likes to say, metaphorically speaking: "There are always ants at a picnic." Just ignore the ants, Mr. President, and bon appetit.
Eisenhower's advice is remarkably apropos for the Fox propaganda network.— Yersinia Pestis- If someone just read Polman and the Inky as their sole source of news and opinion, how would that person view the world? It is funny how liberal "news" rags self-think and crown themselves as high and almighty, pure and fair. The liberal rage think it is okay for them to engage in advocacy journalism. Ignorant hypocrites.— CD75
- What you are seeing by Obama is an incredible lack of maturity at best or downright facsist censorship at worst. Even Bush 43 never cried and whined like this. At least Bush was mature enough (or believed in free speech) to ignore MSNBC, NYT, etc.— CD75
Comment removed.
don't you be calling me Boy!— potus- Comment removed.
- Obama is dead-on correct to call Faux News what it is. It is not a legit news organization, everyone knows that, except the batsh*t wing-nuts who are ignorant enough to believe fake news.— the anti-CD75
- What is sad is how the other networks will now cowtow to the Administration for fear of being put in the same category as Fox. Polman is correct with this post, and I felt it was "fair and balanced" for him to state what would have happened if GWB had done to MSNBC what Obama is doing to Fox. However, this Fox stuff may just be a distraction. What with another 531,000 filing first time jobless claims again last week, the stimulus not working, no decision on Afghanistan even though the troop request is now 60 days old, and the Healthcare bills becoming so unpopular, Fox is a nice distraction. Get things off of people's minds.— tom - wilmington, de
- Latest from Gallup, where Obama's job approval rating is now at 50%. "Nearly half of Americans, 49%, expect the costs they pay for healthcare to get worse if a healthcare bill passes, up from 42% last month. More Americans now also believe their coverage and quality will get worse than did so in September." Meanwhile, the pay czar wants to cut executive pay by 90% (Obama claims to have had no idea this was the pay czar's plan), which amounts to his setting policy without ever being vetted or approved by Congress. Whatever happened to Obama's promise to curb executive/presidential power? Whatever happened to criticism of the "unitarian executive"?— tom - wilmington, de
- Of course Mr. Polman is right on this one. You can't take on a news organization from the White House, no matter how distasteful their coverage is, because it brings the president down to their level (or perceived). It also makes him seem spoiled and thin skinned. Do you think the 'easy' coverage during the primary and general campaigns has caused this sense of entitlement to good news coverage and the thin skin?— NEPhilly
- Speaking of Fox and marginalizing the media, has anyone found a story about the shortage of H1N1 vaccine and statements yesterday from Lieberman on another news outlet besides Fox? This vaccine was coordinated by HHS, but it is nowhere to be found!— tom - wilmington, de
- How sick and messed up as well as angry must someone be to call themself "anti-CD75"? Strange dude.— Comrade Noodlehead
Heckuva job, Rahmie!— Mr. Smith- From AP "A top White House economist says spending from the $787 billion economic stimulus has already had its biggest impact on economic growth and will likely not contribute to significant expansion next year. Christina Romer, the chair of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, said Thursday that the $194 billion already spent gave a jolt to the economy that contributed to growth in the second and third quarters of the year. She told a congressional panel that by the middle of next year, the impact of the stimulus will level off. Romer said spending so far has saved or created 600,000 to 1.5 million jobs but warned that unemployment will remain high, above 9.5 percent, through the end of 2010." So the stimulus is over?— tom - wilmington, de
- Whoa, Tom. First of all, I doubt that George Will or Charles Krauthammer -- or David Brooks for that matter -- are afraid of being put into the same category as Fox. Mainly because they're NOT. They are well informed and are real journalists. I can't imagine any of those three saying something inflammatory like Obama having a deep-seated hatred of white people, at least not without having some pretty substantial proof. As I said yesterday, even op/ed journalists back up their opinions with source materials. And my second issue is merely a question. I was working out this morning and saw on CNN that the pay cut for executives only affected those few firms who had taken stimulus money. And the pay cut for the top execs is 50 percent, not 90. Where did you get your information? Are we talking about the same thing?— NigeltheMastiff
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
