In which Obama makes a large financial contribution to Fox News

by: Adam Bink

Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 20:00


Howie Kurtz makes a point about the legitimization of Fox News:

President Obama is going on Fox News.

He must really want to pass that health-care bill.

No, he's not going to get emotional with Glenn Beck. But Obama will sit down with anchor Bret Baier for an interview that will air Wednesday on the 6 p.m. newscast "Special Report."

This would be unremarkable -- the president is constantly on TV -- except for last year's White House campaign attacking Fox News as an arm of the Republican Party. Fox executives insisted there is an important distinction between its news operation and opinionated hosts such as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. In sitting down with Baier, Obama -- who cordially greeted Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes at a White House Christmas party -- seems to be accepting that distinction.

Jed Lewison doesn't think Obama is accepting that distinction, but I think what misses the point there is that there is no distinction between the programming when it comes to the overall Fox empire. Good content, be it an exclusive interview with Obama or Democratic Strategist arguing with someone, drives viewers. Few people drive viewers more than the President of the United States. Viewers drive ratings, ratings drive ad revenue. It's not hard to understand. Whether Obama goes on with Baier or Hannity or Wallace, it all drives (a) legitimization of Fox as a credible news outlet since, after all, the President is appearing on it (b) ratings (c) ad revenue. Thus, in which Obama, as well as all other progressives/Democrats, financially contribute to Fox News when they go on.

To me, that's the underlying point that's always being missed.

The other thing is that this is a validation of what I called the "send Fox to their room" theory of media control:

Like I wrote back when this first started, this is akin to spanking FOX, sending them to their room, and expecting things to change. They are, and always will be, either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party (and those aren't even mine, those are Dunn's words, speaking for the White House!). They were before Obama came. They will be after Obama leaves. This is a long-term issue, which doesn't justify the White House's "FOX is being mean to us so we spanked them and they'll do better" mindset.

The reason I say that is because we've seen this game before. Flashback to 2008:

Barack Obama is going where his campaign has never gone before: Fox News, where he'll be interviewed by Chris Wallace this weekend on Fox News Sunday.

The Obama camp has more or less shut out Fox ever since they ran with the fake story about him supposedly being educated in a madrassah, so this is a big break from the standard practice. Even before that, Obama didn't have much time for Fox -- by the channel's count, the time between his last sit-down interview with them and this upcoming one will have been 772 days.

Obama already shut out Fox once before- the 2008 campaign- before going on for an interview. Then they did so again last year before giving in again this year. It is funny to me how the Obama team gets mad at Fox, shuts them out, then kisses and makes up after a cooling-off period. All this happens while Fox uses his appearances to go even higher in ratings and rakes in revenue to pay Glenn Beck an estimated $2 million per year, launch new initiatives like Fox Business Channel, push smears like the madrassa story and Barack Hussein Obama, continue punching ACORN, SEIU, Alan Grayson and others, and lie on the issues.

Adam Bink :: In which Obama makes a large financial contribution to Fox News

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I don't see a problem with it. (0.00 / 0)
What's wrong with a few dashes of reason and sense into that pot of gruel called Fox News.

the fact that (0.00 / 0)
everyone who works at fox and everyone who watches are still going to think like inbreds at the end of the day.

Extraordinary progressive star in the making

[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 1)
Half an hour or an hour on Fox is not going to change the pot of gruel from keeping on steaming at all other progressive individuals/causes. Nor change the hearts and minds of its (demonstrably conservative) viewers. Cost/benefts of going on there, as well, given how much it will help support the network.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter


[ Parent ]
FOX should not be given (0.00 / 0)
ANY positive reinforcement.  Obama is a sellout!

[ Parent ]
That Is A Lot Of Wrong With This Matter (4.00 / 1)
Adam nailed down a lot of things: it's lose/lose scenario.
Nobody who watches Fox is going to switch their predisposition  
on how they see Obama.

    I don't understand why their is not concerted effort from liberals, progressives to boycott Murdouch's Empire.
One thing that was cause a big problem would be to not watch any movie produced by 20th Century Fox, Fox Spotlights, etc.  As consumers, we can really put a decent dent in this nefarious empire.


Heh... maybe... (4.00 / 1)
The WaPo had an article about a couple of Strongsville, OH Republicans who became supporters of the health care plan after Obama spoke there the other day.

He only needs to get a few at the moment...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Don't like it (0.00 / 0)
I agree that Democrats shouldn't legitimize Faux by appearing on it.  Ironically, I have more problem with appearing during a news program than I would in one of the "opinion" programs, as I don't mind Democrats appearing in hostile situations in general.

Sure, there's a down-side, but ... (4.00 / 1)
Sure, there's a down-side, but if Obama is allowed to have his say, without constant O'Reilly-like interruptions, there is a chance that some heads will be turned.  To say, as one commenter just has, that "Nobody who watches Fox is going to switch their predisposition" is to say something that is not known to be true.

That there is a chance that some heads will be turned is the upside.  Yes, there is a downside.  Benefit v. Cost.  Judgement call, I guess.  Personally, I think that on this occasion, Obama has called it right.


"Fox News Viewer" (4.00 / 2)
A "Fox News Viewer" won't change his or her mind, but someone else subjected to that channel might be influence, I'll give you that.  I've seen Fox News on in public places, for example.

The problem isn't appearing in a hostile setting, in my opinion, it is giving credibility to something that calls itself news, but is really just propaganda.

I'm conflicted about the financial aspect Adam discusses, though.  At one level I don't think it should be an issue.  On another, I'd like to see progressive media given more love and this kind of financial support, so in a relative sense I agree, I guess.


[ Parent ]
An analogy (4.00 / 1)
I think of it as akin to the "50 State Strategy".  

There are significant similarities.  But, like all analogies, some differences too.


ALL DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS WHO APPEAR ON FOX ARE "SELLOUTS!" (0.00 / 0)
Including Obama.  That's why people hate politicians, including Democrats!  As a Democrat, I am incensed!  FOX should not be given ANY positive reinforcement for their horrific, never-ending propaganda. That is "Psychology 101."  The fact that the DNC doesn't understand that, and that Obama is spineless enough to think he has to perform there, will be his downfall!

Fox sets agenda for all media (0.00 / 0)
Once again that clever Fox News has found a way to get all the media to repeat Republican talking points. Meanwhile the Dems send out static. I hope Obama explains that he's the only moderate Republican left.

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox