October 13, 2009
Obama vs. Media Critics: Stop Whining
John Nichols: The Administration Really Needs To Get Over Itself
-
Play CBS Video Video White House Slams Fox News Harry Smith spoke with Slate Magazine's John Dickerson about President Obama's promises to Gay Rights groups and the White House's attack on Fox News Channel.
-
Video Glenn Beck Katie Couric speaks with the controversial Glenn Beck, who has gained a strong following from both his Fox News TV show and nationally-syndicated radio program.
-
Bill O'Reilly, host of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor." (CBS)
The Obama administration really needs to get over itself.
First, the president and his aides go to war with Fox News because the network maintains a generally anti-Obama slant.
Then, an anonymous administration aide attacks bloggers for failing to maintain a sufficiently pro-Obama slant.
These are not disconnected developments.
An administration that won the White House with an almost always on-message campaign and generally friendly coverage from old and new media is now frustrated by its inability to control the debate and get the coverage it wants.
But before the president and his inner circle go all Spiro Agnew on us, they might want to consider three fundamental facts regarding relations between the executive branch and the fourth estate:
1. Since the founding of the republic, media outlets (the founders dismissed them as "damnable periodicals") have been partisan.
White House communications director Anita Dunn was not exactly breaking news when she told CNN's "Reliable Sources" that Fox was neither fair nor balanced. "What I think is fair to say about Fox -- and certainly it's the way we view it -- is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party," grumbled Dunn. "They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."
Fox hosts do go overboard in their savaging of Obama and the Democrats -- sometimes ridiculously so. But their assaults on the president are gentle when compared with the battering that Benjamin Franklin Bache's Philadelphia Aurora administered to John Adams (appropriately) or the trashing that Colonel McCormick's Chicago Tribune gave Franklin Roosevelt (inappropriately).
To suggest that Fox is not a news network simply because Sean Hannity echoes RNC talking points would be like suggesting that the Aurora was not a newspaper because it took cues from Tom Jefferson or that the Tribune was not a legitimate member of the fourth estate because it was sweet on Alf Landon.
2. Presidents are supposed to rise above their own partisanship and engage with a wide range of media -- even outlets that are hard on their administrations.
In fact, presidents should go out of their way to accept invites from media that can be expected to poke, prod and pester them. The willingness to take the hits suggests that a commander-in-chief is not afraid to engage with his critics. It also reminds presidents, who tend to be cloistered, that there are a lot of Americans who get their information from sources that do not buy what the White House press office is selling.
When Dick Cheney kept giving "exclusive" interviews to Fox "personalities," there were those of us who ridiculed both the personalities and the former vice president for going through the ridiculous exercise of lobbing softballs and swinging at them.
Obama should be better than Cheney. But aides are not helping the president prevail in what ought to be an easy competition.
Cheney saw newspapers such as The New York Times and news channels such as CNN as little more than branches of his Democratic opposition.
When Dunn was asked whether the president refused to accept interview requests from Fox because the White House sees the network as "a wing of the Republican party," the communications director responded: "Is this why he did not appear? The answer is yes."
That is such a radically wrong response that it calls into question the whole communications strategy of an administration that has somehow managed to take a man who was elected with a mandate and lodge him in a corner where there are now serious questions about whether a Democratic president and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress can enact basic elements of the Democratic agenda.
Obama should sit down with Fox reporters and anchors and do interviews. That does not mean that the president has to put up with the emotional wreckage that is Glenn Beck. But there is no reason why he shouldn't go another round with Bill O'Reilly (as Obama did during the 2008 campaign) or sit down with Chris Wallace (as Bill Clinton did).
If the Fox interviewers are absurdly unfair, the American people will respond with appropriate consternation. On the other hand, if they are aggressive and pointed in their challenges, Obama will rise or fall on the quality of his responses. His aides, if they have any faith in their man's abilities, should bend over backwards to accept some Fox interviews. They should also accept an invite from PBS's Bill Moyers, who would pose tougher -and, yes, more informed - questions than the Foxbots.
3. The worst mistake a president or his administration can make is to try and "whip" relatively like-minded writers and reporters into line.
Yet, that appears to be what the Obama team was trying to do with the silly "policing action" of having a White House "adviser," speaking on condition of anonymity, encourage liberal bloggers to "take off their pajamas" and get serious about politics. On Sunday, when gay rights marchers challenged the Obama administration to make real the equality rhetoric of the president, NBC White House correspondent John Harwood:
For a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn't take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely-divided country is complicated and difficult.
Harwood told Huffington Post:
"My comments quoting an Obama adviser about liberal bloggers/pajamas weren't about the LGBT community or the marchers. They referred more broadly to those grumbling on the left about an array of issues in addition to gay rights, including the war in Afghanistan and health care and Guantanamo -- and whether all that added up to trouble with Obama's liberal base..."
The bloggers took offense. The White House tried to "disassociate" itself from the comment. But that's standard operating procedure: toss the bomb and then avoid the fallout.
The bloggers shouldn't be worried.
They should take the criticism as a compliment -- as Fox's ratings show, White House griping harms the White House more than it does the target of the complaint.
The bloggers should also take the criticism as confirmation that they are right when they suggest that this administration is increasingly out of touch with the progressive base that secured Obama the Democratic nomination and ultimately propelled him to the White House.
The fact is that the results of the 2008 election did not reveal "a closely-divided country." Obama arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the most muscular mandate accorded any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide.
The bloggers are right when they argue that the Obama administration can and should be doing more with that mandate.
As for the Obama administration, whether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing -- no attack by Glenn Beck, no blogger busting about Guantanamo -- does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief.
By John Nichols:
Reprinted with permission from The Nation.
 | If you like this article, check out www.thenation.com for more investigative reports, timely editorials and incisive columns |
More From Opinion
Add a Comment See all 16 Comments
- What a crock. Dunn was pointing out that Fox News is an arm of the GOP, not a news organization. Not just that it's not fair, or that it's hard on Obama and Democrats. That it's a PR wing of the GOP. Do you not understand the difference, Mr. Nichols? Now, if you disagree with her assessment, write an article saying that, with credible research to prove it. Don't just ignore her premise and whine yourself, which is all that you did.
Then you put in an obscure reference to an 18th or 19th century newspaper attacking John Adams to make your point. Really? How much do you think that helped enlighten your audience, Mr. Nichols? Do you really think most - or any - of your readers really have an informed opinion about that little feud? Obviously not. It was an entirely useless reference, much like this article.
Instead of putting in the time to watch Fox and do the research to back up your claim that Fox is NOT an arm of the GOP, you just blather on that the White House is whining.
The only whining I hear is coming from you, and from Fox News. If you're going to address a topic, Mr. Nichols, I suggest you figure out the focus first.
If Fox News is not an arm of the GOP, show us with facts how it isn't. Ya know, do some, oh, I don't know, reporting. As if you were a reporter. Try it some time. You might like it. And quitcher whining. - Reply to this comment
-
- You can't be serious. You want facts that prove Fox is not a wing of the Republican party? Should all their reporters take a loyalty oath?
In a free society its the accuser that has the burden of proof, not the accused, but that's the point isn't it. Lets hope people like you are in the minority so we can remain just that, a free society.
- You can't be serious. You want facts that prove Fox is not a wing of the Republican party? Should all their reporters take a loyalty oath?
- It's easy to attack someone else's obvious shortcomings, but much harder to craft a viable solution yourself, Mr. Obama.
This warmed over campaign strategy of attacking anyone who dares to oppose you, while you hawk hope as the national panacea and make promises you can't keep, isn't going to work for you very much longer, Mr. Obama. People are waking up and they don't like what they see.
Fox News and twisted individuals like Beck and Limbaugh have a huge swath of Americans, millions of viewers tuning in regularly to hear what they have to say.
These dissenting voices aren't going away just because the POTUS refuses to grant them interviews.
The Whiner-in-Chief really does need to get over himself. Now. - Reply to this comment
- You can't really compare Bushoccio, a "war president" neo con extremist who lied us into war, gave trillions to the already rich and the war profiteers and admitted to us he broke the law by illegally spying to Obama. And killed more than a million people.
An accomplished, educate man who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his quick deeds to defuse the endless war strategy of the Bush Crime Family. - Reply to this comment
- At the most Fox's total audience represents only about 2% of the total American population. so it's not that big of a deal. And as long as Fixed News wants to call the President a racist, why not freeze them out. Contempt for Fox may make some viewers ask why the President wants nothing to do with them.
- Reply to this comment
- Did Obama forget that he is President of ALL the AMERICAN people? Even the Republicans! It doesn't matter if Fox has more republicans than any other news. He is still the President of the People of the United States and needs to answer to everyone in this country who asks him questions so we all know what he stands for. By singling Fox out and implying he is not going on there because of all the Republicans he is also implying he is not their President. Shame on the Obama administration!
- Reply to this comment
- From the above article, John Nichols quotes:
"When Dunn was asked whether the president refused to accept interview requests from Fox because the White House sees the network as "a wing of the Republican party," the communications director responded: "Is this why he did not appear? The answer is yes."
Mr. Nichols, I saw that interview in it's entirety and you seem to have forgotten the rest of what Ms. Dunn said. She went on after her "yes" to say the president would go on Fox because he believes in facing critics and/or having diverse opinions or questions expressed or asked.
My problem with this is YOU, Mr. Nichols. The biggest obstacle the public faces these days in getting to the truth of a matter is, when way too many of you [insert sarcasm as needed] so-called-journalists report what people say OUT OF CONTEXT... in order to make YOUR point.
The state of journalism is pathetic today and Fox News is certainly not the only organization that renders real news as little more than opinion and "face time for me, the one who loves my own voice so much". - Reply to this comment
-
- PS -- Harwood got his information from an anonymous "White House adviser"?
And we are to assume you are correct in saying the President is "whining".
SOURCES!
Do any of you folks understand that a "White House adviser" could mean the person who helped the intern who waters the plants decide whether they'd have whole milk or non-fat in their morning latte.
Sheesh
If this person IS credible, we need to know why we are to believe them... since believing the "reporters" is becoming increasingly difficult to do.
- PS -- Harwood got his information from an anonymous "White House adviser"?
- WOW, did not expect that article though I guess I should have. What news organization wants to be told what to report? I may have to start reading CBS opinion more often. Also at FOX, there is news and there is opinion.
- Reply to this comment
- Nichols wants to compare fox to newspapers from the 18th century?
The point is that fox DOES claim to be a news organization, and with the 'fair & balanced' as an empty slogan, they're following the neocon bizarro-speak hypocrisy. And the fans buy into. And "BUY" is the operative word, since it's ALL about ad time, and has NOTHING to do with honesty, country or integrity.
Ask rush... - Reply to this comment
- Nicely presented Mr. Nichols. A strong leader with convictions should welcome dissent and encourage free speech from all the citizens of this great country.
A leader of the United States should be a proponent of government scrutiny. This is the very foundation of our country's success. The right to challenge the government and be heard without FEAR.
A leader with conviction and heart should should seek to debate, discuss and acknowledge all perspectives. She or he should thrive on that scrutiny and criticism.
When is the last time we actually had a leader in that office?
Thank you again for your article, too many people in this country have no concept of leadership and no legitimate expectations from our alleged leaders.
You made my day. - Reply to this comment
- This article is more right wing Bologna. Oscar Meyer would be proud.
- Reply to this comment
- Why do these extremist Faux wackos hate America so. Why aren't they advertising that Obama has kept us safe longer than the Bush Crime Family? And he just won the Nobel Peace Prize for waging peace, far more effective than the pre-emptive killing by the Bushoccio Neo CONS.
- Reply to this comment
The road ahead in Afghanistan, and the crucial decision Obama faces.
