In Depth: Exposing the War on FNC for what it is…symbolism.
I’ve held off writing heavily on the White House’s War on FNC. There wasn’t much that I could say about how stupid, wrong headed, and self-destructive it is that hasn’t already been said elsewhere. But there is one aspect that I want to touch on which really hasn’t been talked about much. That is just how half-hearted, or phony if you prefer, it is.
What exactly makes up the much overhyped White House war on FNC, exactly? A bunch or rhetoric from some White House officials and a handful of rebuffed attempts by Fox News Sunday to get Administration officials on the air. That’s really not much of a war if you really think about how the White House is talking. It’s using terms like “FNC isn’t a real news network”. Ok, setting aside for the moment the validity of that statement, let’s take it at face value and say that FNC isn’t a real news network. Ok, then why hasn’t the other shoe dropped? The other shoe, in this case would be the press credentials for FNC reporters who cover Washington. No point in allowing the crampt spaces in the White House briefing room and the various other cabinet press offices, with people who don’t work for a real news network, is there?
Ahhhh…there’s the rub, and the reason why this story is just a war of words and not a war of actions. If the White House and other Administration outlets started yanking the press credentials for everyone connected with FNC, given their stated belief that FNC isn’t a real news network, it would reap the whirlwind. Every beat reporter would turn on the Administration. And rightfully so, because who’s to say that they wouldn’t be next?
The White House knows that. So it just beats up FNC in the press with no intention of really doing anything about it, aside from putting up a blockade on FNC TV appearances – in effect giving the illusion that it’s walking the walk when the reality is it really isn’t. This is all about symbolism and not actions. It’s about scoring political base points with the left without really doing anything about the “problem”. It’s all political. It’s not substantive.
The Administration has calculated, incorrectly, that it can take pot shots at FNC the way the Bush Administration could take shots at NBC. The problem here isn’t as much about rhetoric as it is about proportionality. It’s escalated out of control beyond the realm of the believable. It’s put the White House in an untenable position: it either has to keep ratcheting up the rhetoric or start walking the walk with real concrete actions. And since the White House has already stated that Obama would appear in “the future”, they’ve already shut the door on that option.
The Administration has backed itself into a corner of its own creation. The story is no longer about whatever FNC’s pundits have done or said. The story has now become about what will the White House do next? Continue the yakking or back down in what will be a not-at-all face saving manner. The Administration cannot win this fight and if it doesn’t realize this already it soon will as the story continues to spiral out of its control. It will have the true believer left on its side but will have lost the middle. Someone with an even headed disposition needs to get control of this situation because the hot heads are running the show to the detriment of the White House.
People have made allusions to the Nixon White House and its enemies list. I think it’s a false comparison. The Nixon White House was paranoid to the hilt and didn’t hit back publicly as much as it hit back covertly. That’s not what’s happening here. This is a public battle of rhetoric but without taking the kinds of concrete actions the Nixon White House did to sabotage people it didn’t agree with. With all due respect to FNC and what the White House has done in blocking access to TV appearances, this is not even in the same league. It did not spring out of paranoia as it had with Nixon. It sprang out of an ill-thought out political maneuver to try and score symbolic points.
So many people in the highest levels were part of the deliberations on this that the surest sign that the White House has come to the realization of what a bone headed stunt this was will be when the Administration makes changes to its structure. For example bringing a David Gergen type in; someone who is more concerned with practicalities than scoring self-destructive political points and appealing to its political base. We aren’t at that point yet obviously. But it’s a course change that is bound to come.
October 20, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Good observations, Spud.
Yes, if they really deemed it unworthy, they’d exile FNC to the ends of the earth. Instead, they keep it around, for something to complain about!
October 20, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Spud:
Good overview, but I have two small disagreements.
1. The other shoe, in this case would be [pulling] the press credentials for FNC reporters who cover Washington..
Well, maybe. But they know they can’t do this because, as you know, other outlets that are explicitly point of view organizations also receive press credentials. A crank like Les Kinsolving, a talk show host, has had a press pass for decades and other opinion journalists (Helen Thomas) from opinion publications (National Review, The New Republic) also receive access.
If they cut off access to Fox because, ostensibly, it’s not a news organization they’d have to cut off access for a large number of media organizations.
Not to mention, as you point out, the independent press entities simply would not stand for it. Or many of them.
Cutting off access, interviews, leaks – that’s how they can fight back sotto voce.
2...will be when the Administration makes changes to its structure.
But the people pushing this are Axelrod and Emmanuel. The top political adviser and the gatekeeper/chief-of-staff. Who will order the restructuring? The President?
But I can’t believe that the President hasn’t signed off on his top two advisers leading this counter attack.
Unless there’s a real crisis, I can’t see the President bringing in someone to oversee Axelrod and Emmanuel. Besides, who has the cache to pull it off? The “wise old men” are all dead.
This will stop when the President calls off the dogs. If he wants to.
October 20, 2009 at 5:05 pm
If ever the MSM really wanted to prove their just not mindless followers of Obama this is it…they are the ones who need to put the heat on the White House to stop this war now not to help FOX but to help themselves..because if the WH gets away with this against FOX what’s to stop them from doing this to other members of the MSM if they start doing reports the WH doesn’t like?
October 20, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I’m sure the President signed off on this to a certain extent. But I doubt he realized where this would go. And he doesn’t have to bring in someone to “supervise” Axelrod or Emmanuel. He just needs to bring in a “special advisor” to offer a more diverse viewpoint.
If Obama is half of the politician I believe him to truly be, he must be coming to the realization that this is a lose-lose situation now. And he will second guess himself and his staff for putting himself in this position. This is what happened to Clinton after the 94 elections.
And no, the “old wise men” are not all dead. Some have died off but new ones are there. If the President is predisposed to bring in an even headed type to help stabilize his ship.
Bringing in someone from the outside, isn’t just practical. It’s also symbolic. And symbology can be just as important in a situation like this.
October 20, 2009 at 5:10 pm
if the WH gets away with this against FOX what’s to stop them from doing this to other members of the MSM if they start doing reports the WH doesn’t like?
Now you’re talking sense. But this is good old fashioned rally the base against those evil Fox people.
To be sure, the right has done it too (versus the NY Times, et cetera). But not to this degree since Nixon (and yes, Nixon was far worse since it was covert actions like using the IRS, bugging reporters, et cetera).
October 20, 2009 at 5:10 pm
they are the ones who need to put the heat on the White House to stop this war
I disagree with this statement a bit. It’s not the press’ job to stop the White House. It is the press’ job to question what’s going on. And as with happened with Tapper today, we are starting to see that.
October 20, 2009 at 5:12 pm
But not to this degree since Nixon
Perhaps you are forgetting the Arkansas Project?
October 20, 2009 at 5:14 pm
And no, the “old wise men” are not all dead. Some have died off but new ones are there.
For example?
This Chicago crowd is a tight-knit group. I can’t see a Sam Nunn or a Bob Kerrey (off the top of my head) being able to control/manage/direct them.
October 20, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Perhaps you are forgetting the Arkansas Project?
Sure, but that was Scaife, a private citizen, not an Administration.
We’ve had numerous instances of private citizens engaged in opposition research on Presidents and other public figures over the years. E.g., Where did the first allegations of Jefferson having affairs with his slaves come from?
October 20, 2009 at 5:28 pm
If other outlets and the industry as a whole view FNC as a legit news organization, why are the always by-passed for the big and prestigious media awards? Emmy’s? Murrow’s etc etc.
Seems to me the industry disses them as much as the administration is.
October 20, 2009 at 5:44 pm
- Chicago crowd –
We got a glimpse into Chicago-style politics a few months ago with Rod Blagojevich, who was portrayed in the media as being “way out there” but in “Chicago” reality was only guilty of getting caught. Or check out some of the lucrative deals former Speaker Of The House Denny Hastert weaseled for himself while he was in office (first reported on Fox, I believe) … so it isn’t limited to just the Dems. Campaigning and strong-arming is what this White House staff knows so it’s no surprise that this is what they’re doing.
In his Illinois State Senate career, Barack Obama accomplished nothing from a governing perspective. In his U.S. Senate career, again he accomplished nothing. Without any legislative accomplishments and absolutely no executive experience, the president and his team are the rudderless ship they appear to be and so have created an enemy in Fox News so they can “do something”. Not very smart over the long haul, but so far this administration hasn’t so far demonstrated an ability to do anything smart.
The sad part is the entire world is watching. And learning. The lesson is: Barack Obama likes to play games but he isn’t very good at it. The United States of America is now easily manipulated – throw him some worthless bones once in a while while we eat the meat.
October 20, 2009 at 5:50 pm
I need some help. Can anyone remember anyone on MSNBC staging anything similar to the Kevin Jennings witch hunt? Or a CNN host connecting Bush to Hitler or Mao on a chalkboard?
Nice copy and paste of today’s Ruth Marcus snoozefest.
October 20, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Sidebar: Fox News reported this evening that both Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow were invited to a limited, off-the-record briefing with the President himself yesterday.
Apparently, some point-of-view journalists are more equal than others.
Yes, Bush held similar meetings with radio talk show hosts but the difference should be obvious.
October 20, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Spud, I agree with most of your analysis, but don’t recall the Bush administration EVER talking about NBC or MSNBC.
The only time they specifically criticized one particular medium was when the NY Times revealed classified information about national security matters.
You’re correct that his helps with their their ultra-lib base, and they need that, since the public option will fail & there’s a war that needs fighting in Afghanistan.
October 20, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Or a CNN host connecting Bush to Hitler
Keith Patrick Olbermann. Repeatedly. He also repeatedly called Republicans the “leading terror group in America.”
On MSNBC, of course, not CNN.
This isn’t an either-or discussion. I’ll not defend the loon Beck or the ideologue Hannity. One can criticize both Fox News for allowing some outrageous smears to be broadcast while also criticizing the White House for excessive over-reaction.
If the White House wants to sic the DNC or other assets on Fox, fine. But they were sent to Washington to run the executive branch of the federal government and not be media ombudsmen.
October 20, 2009 at 6:35 pm
This Chicago crowd is a tight-knit group. I can’t see a Sam Nunn or a Bob Kerrey (off the top of my head) being able to control/manage/direct them.
That’s what they said about Reagan and his “California Mafia”, Bush I and his Texas contingent, Clinton and his Arkansas inner circle, and Bush 2 and his inner circle. And Nixon had his long time cronies.
Of the five, Reagan’s broke up over time, Bush I’s did too (to a lesser degree), Clinton made a big time course correction, and Bush II’s group eroded after the 2004 election. Nixon’s only broke up because they had to resign one after the other.
Differing voices always come in to an Administration.
Bush administration EVER talking about NBC or MSNBC.
Then you have memory trouble. The one that I can recall right off the top of my head was the big time pushback to NBC’s “Civil War” declaration on Iraq.
Or a CNN host connecting Bush to Hitler or Mao on a chalkboard?
This is mostly an apples and oranges comparison. FNC has arguably more provocative bomb throwers on their network than either CNN or MSNBC. Dobbs is a one trick pony (illegal immigrants). Olbermann screamed the sky was falling numerous times but did it in a different manner than Beck has.
Apparently, some point-of-view journalists are more equal than others.
Nothing new there. Bush II invited select conservative groups/entities to the White House during his run.
If other outlets and the industry as a whole view FNC as a legit news organization, why are the always by-passed for the big and prestigious media awards? Emmy’s? Murrow’s etc etc.
Mostly because FNC doesn’t submit pieces for awards. If you don’t take part, you can’t get awarded.
Sure, but that was Scaife, a private citizen, not an Administration.
You specifically used the term “the right”. You didn’t narrow it down to administrations only. If that was your intention, you are correct, but you should have been more clear.
October 20, 2009 at 6:42 pm
If that was your intention, you are correct, but you should have been more clear.
Yes; but since the discussion has centered around the government/press relationship (this White House vs. Nixon vs others) over the years I thought it would be obvious.
Quite enough from me. Let’s let others chip in.
October 20, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I recall Bush 43 giving one-on-one interviews with NBC, CNBC, and even NYT reporters even during those times when his White House was “pushing back” on some of their reports. All administrations criticise the press, but this one has done so to a whole new level.
The Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 administrations all had contingents already with executive experience. Those also had some pretty heavy experience within their inner circles.
October 20, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Al,
Experience does not always = prudence
I don’t know if Obama’s done it to a whole new level. I would argue Nixon was worse and the Clinton’s had their issues too. What Obama is doing is different in as much as he’s singling out one whole network using the bully pulpit. Usually this sort of thing is left for non-Administration surrogates to handle. It’s still stupid though.
October 20, 2009 at 9:33 pm
All administrations criticise the press, but this one has done so to a whole new level.
If you believe that, then you must have been living in a cave the last few years. The Bush administration did everything the Obama administration is doing, plus a whole lot more. Unless you forgot about the fake news pieces put together, or the columnists who got paid with taxpayer money to shill for the Bush policy of the week. So knock it off with the blinders.
October 21, 2009 at 4:49 am
sviscusi,
I know something occurred with the RINO Armstrong Williams, but can you provide any specifics on the rest of your indictment of the GWB administration?
October 21, 2009 at 5:15 am
Unless you forgot about the fake news pieces put together, or the columnists who got paid with taxpayer money to shill for the Bush policy of the week
How is any of that an attack or criticism of the press?
Furthermore, how is citing the abuses, real or exagerrated, of another Administration a defense of this one?
If one can’t defend this Administration, just say it; don’t use the “Look over there” argument. That’ll work with ideologues but it won’t work with most folks here.
October 21, 2009 at 5:16 am
darn it
Close.
October 21, 2009 at 5:28 am
Charles Krauthammer, a fierce critic of this Administration, sums it up:
“Look, it’s one thing for the government, the administration to attack opponents, institutions, media. It is another to go out to try and delegitimize them and destroy them.”
Delegitimize? Certainly. Destroy? That’s a bit over the top although I guess by delegitimizing Fox that will be the end result.
If one wants to put, consciously or not, party or ideology above the country – or thinks that the two are the same – I guess the Administratin’s actions are acceptable. As Lincoln said, for those who like this sort of thing, this is the type of thing they’ll like.
But I think it stinks and is dangerous. And Helen Thomas, The Nation magazine, National Review and Rush Limbaugh all agree with me.
When has that last happened?
October 21, 2009 at 6:29 am
If one wants to put, consciously or not, party or ideology above the country – or thinks that the two are the same – I guess the Administratin’s actions are acceptable.
Oh god – what year is this again? It’s HILARIOUS to see this coming out of the mouth of a conservative.
October 21, 2009 at 6:59 am
@stevemg So no memory of anyone at CNN or MSNBC going after an administration official like FNC has gone after Kevin Jennings?
Or CNN/MSNBC sponsoring anti-war protests?
I’m still stumped.
October 21, 2009 at 7:43 am
Lemans, did you ever watch MSNBC while Bush was President?
Did you ever see a Special Comment from Keith Olbermann?
Did you see the continuous coverage of Cindy Sheehan’s protest in Crawford on EVERY news channel?
Or did you live in a cave from 2001-2008?
October 21, 2009 at 4:10 pm
[...] by KingShamus on October 21, 2009 …Why don’t you terminate their press credentials? What exactly makes up the much overhyped White House war on FNC, exactly? A bunch of rhetoric from [...]
October 21, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Oh god – what year is this again? It’s HILARIOUS to see this coming out of the mouth of a conservative.
For the netroots dittoheads or the talk show dittoheads, the world is divided into good vs. evil. Liberals are good while conservatives are evil. Or vice versa.
No shades of gray, no distinctions. All conservatives are “X” or all liberals are “X.” And of course, all conservatives and all liberals are the same. No gradations of thinking within each camp.
The absolute remarkable aspect of this is both the projection of their own reactionary thinking to others while at the same time maintaining an absolute lack of self-awareness.
Yep, it is hilarious.
October 21, 2009 at 5:37 pm
It would be nice if every once in a while some of the heavier political topics were discussed from the perspective of what we all agree on. I’ve always believed that conservatives and liberals agree far more than e disagree, and our disagreements are mostly how to best achieve what both want.
October 21, 2009 at 5:38 pm
So no memory of anyone at CNN or MSNBC going after an administration official like FNC has gone after Kevin Jennings?
I recall MSNBC interrupting their broadcast with the breaking story that John McCain had had sex with a lobbyist in return for beneficial legislation for the women’s clients.
If your argument is that FNC is sometimes – okay, more than sometimes – an irresponsible news network, you’ll have no disagreement with me. None.
But if you think FNC is the only irresonsible network, we’ll part company.
October 21, 2009 at 5:49 pm
It would be nice if every once in a while some of the heavier political topics were discussed from the perspective of what we all agree on.
Yes, but the ideologues on both sides always have a way of disrupting whatever conversations we start to have. They demand purity over compromise, perfection over consensus.
If you criticize Obama in any way, well you must be one of those “neocons” or dittoheads because all conservatives are the same.
Similarly, if you defend Obama you must be a socialist out to make America a decadent, European style state at the service of the evil United Nations.
The loons control the debate. Beck or Olbermann. Limbaugh or Krugman.
So, we wind up fighting the same fights.