Try as I may to put the war between FOX News and the White House behind me and to move onto something else, I simply can't. The story is just too interesting, and becomes more bizarre every day. It's even becoming a bit scary.
A consensus is building that the White House's strategy of attempting to marginalize and delegitimize FOX News is a bad idea. Tom Bevan writing in Real Clear Politics, for example, notes how the White House's effort to delegitimize FOX, from the time that "Communications Director Anita Dunn first announced the White House's war against FOX news", has been ramped up. The other media networks, the "legitimate" ones, have been encouraged by the White House to join in on the battle. They have been urged to follow the White House's lead and not to treat FOX news as a legitimate news organization. Do not be led by FOX, do not follow it, is the White House's advice. What this exactly means to me is not clear. Are they to shun FOX reporters at conferences, press club dinners, or on other occasions? Are they to refuse to follow up on news stories uncovered by FOX news? What exactly is their part to be in this battle? And whether the other news organizations wish to join this White House coalition of the brave against FOX News remains to be seen.
Even the New York Times seems to be in agreement that what it calls "The Battle Between the White House and Fox News" is a bad idea. David Carr writes that with two on-going wars, the White House's decision to "open up a third front last week, this time with Fox news", so far has resulted in Fox news being the "only winner". "Trading punches with cable shouters seems a bit too common", writes Carr.
Or one can look at the Baltimore Sun's take on this matter. David Zurawick writes that despite the "media blowback that greeted Anita Dunn's declaration of war on Fox News", instead of now being cautious in its treatment of FOX, the White House continues in its effort to bully the media network into submission.
The most offensive thing about this, at least to me, is Rahm Emanuel's argument that the way the White House sees it, FOX News "is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective". What in the world does this mean? That other news organizations are legitimate because they have no perspective? Or that other news organizations are legitimate because they share the government's perspective?
There is a real issue here, that of freedom of the press. One does not have to like FOX to feel a sense of outrage over the fact that government influence and pressure are being used here to delegitimize, ostracize and ultimately to silence a free press outlet, with which the government does not agree. And that to me is scary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ummmm ... but weren't you recently chiding the Swedish government for FAILING to "delegitimize, ostracize and ultimately to silence a free press outlet with which the government does not agree"? In fact, you seemed quite persuaded that governments SHOULD step in. This would not, you argued, be a violation of free expression. Now you're saying that doing just that is a violation of "freedom of the press". So, two questions: (1) is "freedom of the press" (which I do not see anywhere in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) more important than free expression (which is in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms)? and (2) how do you reconcile criticizing Sweden for failing to chip away at freedom of the press with your criticism of Obama here?
ReplyDeleteFor more interesting reporting on the topic, check out the Politico:
ReplyDelete"A White House attempt to delegitimize Fox News – which in past times would have drawn howls of censorship from the press corps – has instead been greeted by a collective shrug.
That’s true even though the motivations of the White House are clear: Fire up a liberal base disillusioned with Obama by attacking the hated Fox. Try to keep a critical news outlet off-balance. Raise doubts about future Fox stories. . . "
the rest:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28497.html
But most of all, get other journalists to think twice before following the network’s stories in their own coverage.
And one more from the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus (an Obama supporter):
ReplyDelete"There’s only one thing dumber than picking a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel -- picking a fight with people who don’t even have to buy ink. The Obama administration’s war on Fox News is dumb on multiple levels. It makes the White House look weak, unable to take Harry Truman’s advice and just deal with the heat. It makes the White House look small, dragged down to the level of Glenn Beck. It makes the White House look childish and petty at best, and it has a distinct Nixonian -- Agnewesque? -- aroma at worst. It is a self-defeating trifecta: it distracts attention from the Obama administration’s substantive message; it serves to help Fox, not punish it, by driving up ratings; and it deprives the White House, to the extent it refuses to provide administration officials to appear on the cable network, of access to an audience that is, in fact, broader than hard-core Obama haters. . . "
the rest: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/10/obamas_dumb_war_with_fox_news.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Lewis,
ReplyDelete"Freedom of the press." Are you kidding? After 20 posts, by you and others, you have finally decided that this is the real issue? And you think freedom of the press includes privileged access to the president?
Ron