In Depth: Obama vs. FNC – FNC strikes back…
All day long FNC has been beating the “Obama is avoiding us” drum. It started on Fox and Friends and continued throughout the day. I watched Your World and Neil Cavuto devoted a long segment at the top of his show to the subject (which featured stills or video of Cavuto talking to just about everyone in politics). Update: Video here.
You’d think from the way FNC was talking today that it’s all just partisan Obama politics and there’s no real reason why Obama would not want to appear on the cable news leader…
Well there is this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And those are just the ones I could find quickly.
FNC has made it easy for Obama to blow them off. David Shuster got thrown under the bus at NBC for one little comment regarding Chelsea Clinton when it became apparent that it could lose access to the Clinton campaign. It removed Olbermann and Matthews from political event coverage after things went off the rails at the Republican National Convention and there was a lot of blowback coming from Republicans aimed at the network (though it really should have happened much much sooner). Was anyone at FNC reprimanded in such a manner for any of the above transgressions? I don’t think so.
It would be one thing if all of the above never happened and Obama tried to play politics with FNC (which he is most definitely doing here). But with a back story like the above, FNC has given Obama the ammunition he needs to paint the network in the light he paints it. Without it he’s just firing blanks. With it, he scores real hits. He did something similar during the campaign. Like I said, FNC has made it easy for him. Just like Olbermann, Schultz, and Maddow have made it easy for MSNBC to be painted as the liberal network by conservatives.
Would I go on FNC if I was him? Sure. I wouldn’t do Fox and Friends (too many loose canons there), Beck (what’s the point?), or Hannity (ditto), but O’Reilly, surprisingly, has shown to be pretty even handed when put under the big spotlights that a major interview brings. I would definitely do Fox News Sunday.
But let’s look at it from Obama’s perspective. He’s got 65% (now) 53% 56% approval ratings. He’s a smooth media operator. Given the past rhetoric coming out of that network, he doesn’t need to deal with FNC at this point. If his numbers drop more, that will change.
Inside Cable News 
June 17, 2009 at 2:10 pm
C’mon Spud, that was a pretty weak defense. So, GWB should have blacklisted CBS because the FACE OF THAT NETWORK intentionally falsified documents in an attempt to sway an election against him? GWB should have blacklisted NBC for any number of reasons, including comparing him to Hitler? Can’t think of anything about ABC off the top of my head but with about 5 minutes research I could come up with plenty.
Obama is a thin-skinned pansy who’s afraid of dissent. That what this is about. No more. No less.
June 17, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Poor underdog ratings leader FNC. They built their empire by attacking the Clintons and rose to the top of the ratings heap as Bush’s mouthpiece. Now, after trying to sell Obama as a Muslim extremist socialist Communist terrorist scary black guy, they can’t get an interview. Boo hoo.
Obama calling them out is smart politics. He’s playing them with their own game. They set themselves up as the conservative network, now he’s swatting the ball back over the net. “You wanna be the right wing mouthpiece when they’re in power, you gotta suck it up with them when they’re marginalized.” It’s a genius play. He’s creating a reality in which every loony thing said about him over there is ignored by everybody except the true believers.
Don’t worry righties, MSNBC’s day will come, too. Someday (maybe) a rightie will have the helm again, and MSNBC will be a daily cuss word. I expect Mathews and KO to be retired by then.
June 17, 2009 at 2:17 pm
So, GWB should have blacklisted CBS because the FACE OF THAT NETWORK intentionally falsified documents in an attempt to sway an election against him?
If it was part of a pattern of similar stories on CBS, sure that would give Bush the ammo he would need to avoid CBS. You misunderstand me however. I’m not defending Obama. I’m arguing that Obama should go on FNC but the network has made it easy for him not to. It would be a lot harder to justify it in my eyes if all that stuff hadn’t happened.
June 17, 2009 at 2:21 pm
And I would point out that that incident basically cost Rather his job at CBS. Mapes got fired to boot. There was accountability. Where was the accountability for all the incorrect rhetoric coming out of FNC?
June 17, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Didn’t obama meet with Murdoch??? Apparently that didn’t pacify him. But Obama whining about FNC during the CNBC interview is a bit silly. He never watches FNC, just like most of the fox-haters.
June 17, 2009 at 2:49 pm
He didn’t whine about anything, he hit back at the all-the-MSM-Obama-press-is-positive myth that Harwood served up. But of course the right wing, in their current martyrdom mode, is convinced FNC isn’t part of the MSM.
June 17, 2009 at 3:02 pm
But of course the right wing, in their current martyrdom mode, is convinced FNC isn’t part of the MSM.
heh, I agree with them. I’m with Krauthammer on this – they created their own alternate reality and are living there. the rest of us can visit or not, as we choose.
June 17, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Was anyone at FNC reprimanded in such a manner for any of the above transgressions? I don’t think so.
Didn’t ED Hill get the boot shortly after the terrorist fist jab comment?
On second thought, I doubt she was getting renewed anyway. (After getting “moved” off several anchor slots.)
June 17, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Those examples of why Obama has a reason not to go on Fox reminds me of how Fox complained about the MSM attacking Gov. Palin during the campaign with internet nonsense. There’s plenty of guilt to go around.
Obama should go on FNS. I’d like to see Obama grant Shep Smith an interview. Shep would be tough but fair.
June 17, 2009 at 3:52 pm
On second thought, I doubt she was getting renewed anyway.
I was going to say…that ship had already sailed…
Those examples of why Obama has a reason not to go on Fox reminds me of how Fox complained about the MSM attacking Gov. Palin during the campaign with internet nonsense.
And she’s been plenty critical of that “coverage” too. Just like Obama. As a result, Palin has been very picky about where she’ll appear on TV and with whom. Nothing wrong with that.
June 17, 2009 at 3:53 pm
And there is plenty of blame to go around. There is a price to be paid for being “reckless” in your criticisms. Those that are reckless tend to get punished for it. It’s cause and effect…
June 17, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Where did you get the 53% approval rating? Gallup has him at 61%.
June 17, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Well ABC is giving Obama free airtime with no dissenting views to push his social healthcare plan..NBC gave him that puff interview and CBS kisses his butt everyday along with CNN…and of course nothing has to be said about MSNBC love affair with Barry O..so I can see why he’s upset that he dosen’t have complete control of all news outlets
June 17, 2009 at 7:30 pm
You guys don’t actually watch MSNBC, do you? Barack Obama is a moderate Democratic (which is what I voted for), not the “progressive” KO, Maddow and Big Eddie thought they were getting. He gets hammered from at least one of those shows every night.
June 17, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Where did you get the 53% approval rating? Gallup has him at 61%.
New poll out today apparently. Actual number is 56. I have corrected it. I read about it on a Howard Kurtz tweet talking about those numbers via Chuck Todd.
June 17, 2009 at 9:23 pm
June 17, 2009 at 9:25 pm
You guys don’t actually watch MSNBC, do you? Barack Obama is a moderate Democratic (which is what I voted for), not the “progressive” KO, Maddow and Big Eddie thought they were getting. He gets hammered from at least one of those shows every night.
All that means is that Obama isn’t a far left radical which Olbermann and Maddow are (thus their displeasure). It doesn’t mean he still isn’t very left of center. He’s not a moderate.
June 18, 2009 at 7:48 am
All that means is that Obama isn’t a far left radical which Olbermann and Maddow are (thus their displeasure). It doesn’t mean he still isn’t very left of center. He’s not a moderate.
People’s perceptions of the ‘center’ have moved considerably in my lifetime. Today a young Nixon couldn’t get nominated to anything as a Republican – he’d be called a pinko. Or worse, a RINO.
June 18, 2009 at 9:19 am
“All that means is that Obama isn’t a far left radical which Olbermann and Maddow are (thus their displeasure).”
Oh brother. No wonder BR feels so at home on this site.
June 18, 2009 at 10:33 am
Spud, we clearly have different definitions of “moderate”. For me there’s far lefty, moderate and centrist. As far as I’m concerned, centrist isn’t Democrat, it’s Independent. Obama is not a radical “progressive” and not an Independent. That makes him a moderate Democrat. YRMV.
June 18, 2009 at 7:01 pm
What’s the difference between a “moderate” and a”centrist?”
June 18, 2009 at 7:26 pm
What’s the difference between a “moderate” and a “centrist?”
In the unlikely event that you’re serious, a Democratic moderate leans left but not far left, i.e. civil unions but not gay marriage, out of Iraq but not in a rushed manner which would destabilize the region further. A centrist is, in my opinion, all over the map and probably a low knowledge voter. Independents are the like the people in my miserable state (CA.) who vote for sustained, keeping-up-with-inflation education funding, then shoot down the taxes to support it. To echo a recent post on another subject, centrists are goons.
June 19, 2009 at 4:33 am
“Bush’s Mouthpiece” sure did back him on Harrier Myers, Dubai Ports, campaign finance, TARP, NCLB, immigration, spending …
June 19, 2009 at 9:56 am
“In the unlikely event that you’re serious…”
Yes, I was serious… I wanted to know your structure. I think a lot of problems in these political debates come from people using terminology that isn’t standard. What you call XYZ, I may call ABC… we’ll argue about the same thing, but think we’re on different pages due to semantics.
RE: moderate vs centrist, etc.
I see where you’re coming from, but don’t exactly agree with you.
For me, there are moderates (left/right), centrists and independents, Republicans, Democrats, far right/left-ists, and then people who are so far out of the mainstream they’re no longer associated with a mainstream party.
Moderates lean one way or another, but aren’t 100%, and have a few critical issues which keep them from joining the party all together (I put myself in that category).
Centrists and Independents, often are part of the “just get along” groups, and don’t really care or follow politics all that much.
Democrats/Republicans adhere to the party, defend the party, and in general go along with about 95% of the rest. They may differ on an issue here or there, but they’re generally civil, and not fanatical about their beliefs (not the type of people who will have an attack bumper sticker on their car… at most, just a support sticker).
Far Left/Far Right folks are often the party bomb throwers, who are happy to attack, insult, and demean their opposition for even trivial reasons. They frequent their respective far-out blogs, rant and rave instead of discuss, and have ideas that the majority of America thinks are a little odd. They’re more likely to shout and defend their positions, just for the sake of defending them, not because they really believe them, or want to “convince” anyone of anything… they just want to be in control.
And then there are the other loons… people like the von Brunn (IMO), who are so far out there, they don’t belong to the party at all, and are part of their own little separatist groups.
That’s how I see things… but maybe that’s just me.
June 19, 2009 at 10:07 am
By your definition I would be a moderate Democrat, which was already my definition. My critical differences would be states rights for abortion and g@y marriage laws.
June 19, 2009 at 6:45 pm
You’re difference with the Democratic party is the “marriage laws?” In other words you’re against g@y marriage? (Just trying to understand)
That would be very funny… because g@y marriage is one of the issues where I break ranks with the Republicans, and am on the “pro” side of the argument.
June 19, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Yep, I’m for civil unions but not g@y marriage. Gonna have to leave it there. I don’t debate abortion, gun control or g@y marriage. I’m pro-choice and pro some gun control.
September 17, 2009 at 2:55 pm
[…] Hall should know the reasons why team Obama has been playing hardball with FNC (for backstory see this). I don’t agree with what the Administration is doing but FNC has made it easy for them to do […]