I personally don't watch Sunday morning talking head shows on tee-vee. Consequently, I have no idea how well President Obama did.
Many people have commented on the dangers of Mr. O's becoming over-exposed. Can he wear out the welcome of TV-audiences? I'm not sure on that point. Most of these Sunday interviews don't have lasting effect, except in the case of the guest getting caught off guard with a question or getting caught off-point in his answer. It's part of the human condition to get caught both ways.
I am speaking as one who is not in Barrack Obama's pocket, but definitely in his corner. And my hope is that POTUS #44 turns out to be sufficiently resilient and perspicacious to cover all his bases. Certainly, history has left him with more vulnerable bases than 90% of his presidential predecessors.
What is sure, is that he has no extra time or energy to devote to TV networks who are not driven by serious journalistic professionalism. Obama serves himself and America best by not dignifying such faux pretenders with his presence.
What does the record show?
Fox News, with whom the White House is none too happy, was the only major TV outfit to get stiffed by Obama. Sunday show host Chris Wallace embraced the show of disrespect saying,
Today, the president is talking and talking. But we have a 'FOX News Sunday' exclusive, the only place you won't see Barack Obama making yet another pitch for health care.What would have been the point?
"the most liberal Senator"
ReplyDeleteYeah, right. IMO, the guy barely qualifies as a liberal.
Writing yet again about my right wingnut coworkers but Fox has them believing the president is washed up with him certain to lose in 2012. While that may be the case I suspect that their judgment may yet be premature. So in other words screw Fox, let them paint themselves in a corner. They don't even try to sound "fair and balanced".
ReplyDeleteWhy don’t U just entertain UR readers by speculating on what specific hoops Fox should be made 2 jump and how high in order 2 re-qualify 4 a presidential presence?
ReplyDeleteThis one's a close call for me, Vig (whether or not to go on Fox). On the one hand, I could see why the administration would want to stick it to a network that has clowns like Hannity and Beck constantly berating the President. On the other hand, there are a lot of moderates and independents who watch Fox, too. Plus, I don't think that Wallace is any where near the worst of them over there. Me, I might have advised him to do it........P.S. Please don't ask me what happened to the last guy who took my "advice".
ReplyDeleteNo, no, no! That’s garbage!
ReplyDeleteThese fake journalists cannot expect to be taken seriously. No one, not me certainly, considers that they take themselves seriously as journalists. The real point is that is that the people on Faux News are only marginally smarter, balanced, and reflective than their listeners. That makes the latter very dangerous indeed. These pretend newscasters know, at the EOD, what they’re trying to do. And they’re not about electoral victory. They are only embarrassing the GOP. They’re just pulling out all of the stops to prevent Barack Obama from governing effectively.
Don’t any more idiots tell me that they listen to Fox to get another point of view, to get a balanced POV. Fox doesn’t have a POV. Fox has a cause. Cultivated idiocy.
The President (then senator) went on O'Reilly during the campaign. It didn't seem to hurt him all that much. Yes, Fox is biased. That's kind of stating the obvious. But it's kind of like what Bill Maher once said, "sometimes you have to win one on the road."
ReplyDeleteI don't think I agree with Mssrs Hart and Maher.
ReplyDeleteGames played in the Fox arena are not just 'away games' or 'on the road'. They are non-league games. When you play in Fox City, you face longer odds than normally against a home-town advantage because of the officials who referee are not league professionals, but are hand-picked partisans and only paid if the Fox team wins. Fox City won't change their unprofessional officiating unless they are boycotted until they hire pros.
Therefore, Obama is right to put Fox Inc on "ignore".
Fox is the only news organization (so-called) that didn’t carry Obama’s speech before Congress’ Joint Session. Now they’re complaining that Obama doesn’t want to carry them? Why do Fox newzmen usually have to interview their own journalist-posers? I say they are having problems getting other public personages to appear. It’s not just Obama!
ReplyDeleteThink about it, though, Vig. Those real hard-core Fox viewers wouldn't support Obama anyway. But Fox (believe it or not) comprises somewhat more than that. I watch a fair amount of Fox and I haven't voted Republican for President since 1988 (sorry, couldn't quite pull the trigger for Dukakis). And, really, Chris Wallace? I really think that Obama can handle Chris Wallace.
ReplyDeleteI suppose appearing on Fox is analogous to appearing on "Colbert". One is expected to play along with the fantasy that they are participating in an actual news broadcast.
ReplyDeleteFox News is closer to Entertainment Tonight than it is to real news. The president did the right thing by not gracing them with his presence.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with most of you.
ReplyDeleteFox News Channel is not news.
Fox is about as far away from broadcast journalism as the WWF is from Major League Baseball: --my point being that even with the scourge of steroids in baseball today, the WWF is no closer to being an actual sport; as any of the sporadic errors committed by the established news networks or their calculated and financially motivated ommissions do not in any way make it acceptable for Fox News Channel to engage in the runaway propaganda that it broadcasts 24 hours a day. (With the exception of Sheppard Smith's show, and occassionally Geraldo Rivera's programs).
It's just not a news channel.
-SJ
On occasion, I actually watch Faux Noise. It's a good way to learn in advance what the propaganda the Repuglican leaders will parrot the next day.
ReplyDelete@TomCat,
ReplyDeleteI hear that. But it's all the lying I can't sit through, especially when I think of the fact that at that same moment, someone, somewhere is nodding their head at their TV as if they are getting actual information and facts.
Last night I watched someone from the Cato Institute on PBS' The News Hour give a well reasoned, clear statement of potential logistic problems with the 5 healthcare bills under proposal. I don't agree that his points were all deal-breakers or unsolvable (And let's face it, we all know what the Cato Institute is about, -if there wasn't so much money at stake they wouldn't even study this problem) but the point is I could actually understand his arguments and concerns, and hear his opposing view point while he discussed scenarios that were actual (Massachussetts Healthcare Programs) and theoretical (The bills currently being built and rewritten.)
While the Cato Institute's stance (as communicated on PBS' the News Hour) against Healthcare was predictably pro status quo, -it was not incindiary or based on inflammatory and distracting falsehoods and lies. Not once did anybody on either side of this discussion try to distract the audience by accusing anybody of anything other than disagreement.
Curiously, I'd never get the actual Conservative side of this argument on Fox, because presenting concrete issues, (no matter how fundamentally opposed,) with any of the bills being shaped can potentially lead to solutions for those issues.
Fox News Channel would never even allow a real Conservative viewpoint (or any other) on Healthcare, because that's a conversation they just don't want to happen, anywhere, in any way.
As a Liberal, I desperately want the opposition to elaborate its points... because ultimately the facts of the matter will lead us back to the reality of the situation:
Healthcare is too important, too basic a need to be left up to corporations who put profits and dollars before human lives.
-SJ
Tomcat,
ReplyDeleteSometimes I like to pick off the first base coaches signals and know what pitch is coming.So on rare occasion I'll do what you mentioned,see what Fox has to say so I'll know what type of wack idiocy my coworkers will be parroting the following day.Gives me the illusion of intelligence !
I still don't see how Obama being interviewed by Chris Wallace (one of the least obnoxious people ON Fox) hurts the President. 1)The liberal base would forgive him. 2)The hard-core Fox viewer doesn't like him anyway. 3)He might actually persuade some independents (you know, the people who actually put him over the top in the election). And 4)Any exposure is good exposure. Plus, by not going on, he takes the risk of looking weak and petty.
ReplyDeleteChris Wallace has neither the brains, nor the skill, nor the integrity, nor the ability of his father, Mike. He is a distant also-ran in all categories of journalism, and Fox "News" makes the National Enquirer look like a model of legitimate reporting.
ReplyDeleteWill, I took your "playing on the road" line and cobbled together a complete metaphor, to which you never really responded. My point is debate and rhetoric isn't played fair or balanced over at Faux. Why should Obama spend his time serving pearls to swine when he gets plenty of 'exposure' elsewhere? The Lemmings who watch Faux want entertainment, let them try real news networks. (Well, as real as it gets on teevee anyways.) It's not that Obama has anything to lose; it's that why should do any favors for Faux? As someone above said, if they didn't carry his address to Congress, why should the POTUS carry them? Why should he treat them as a bon fide news group when they're patent fakers?
ReplyDeleteAnd Jack nails it again!
ReplyDeleteNo one should fail to read Glenn Greenwald on Glenn Beck and Left-Right Confusion. This article channels Frank Rich and supports my contention in my comments above.
ReplyDeleteSo, Vig, should Republicans refrain from going on MSNBC? I mean, they face nothing but vitriole and ridicule on that network (from 5PM all the way to midnight). And what about Chuck Schumer, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, etc., etc.? They go on Fox all the time. Are they guilty of doing Fox News a "favor"? And I'm not so sure about this stereotyping of Fox viewers in general (Hannity's and Beck's viewers, maybe). Shepard Smith's viewers might not be so bad. And during the day, Martha McCallum's and Trace Gallager's show seems pretty straight forward/decent. As for Mr. Jordell's assessment of Mr. Wallace, methinks that that might have to do with a certain little career decision that the latter made. If he was currently working for MSNBC, I'm kind of thinking that his I.Q. would rise a little.
ReplyDeleteCertainly a good learning experience reading all these comments.
ReplyDeleteDon't know much about how Fox News tele deliver their drivel in the US but one thing we know is that if Murdoch drives Fox News tele, then they can't be very good.
@Will& Jack & Vig,
ReplyDeleteI can't really see an equivalance between MSNBC (Which honestly, I don't really watch anymore either as they've also swung toward more opinion and analysis oriented programming over the years) and Fox News.
I watch the News Hour on PBS because while it ain't much in terms of running time, it's all I can trust today.
After all, there is no "news" network that put on nonsense like the "Hannity & Colmes show" except Fox: it was a fake debate program for crying out loud.
FNC is in an illegimate class all by itself, it's just not what it claims to be.
If a Conservative or Republican has his head handed to him on MSNBC or another network, it's because of the weakness of his argument, not because he/she had his/her microphone cut off as happens on FNC's the O'Reilly Factor.
Nobody ever cuts Michele Bachmann off, anywhere. She's ridiculed because she's ridiculous.
In any case, I don't think that people have the stomach for real 24 hour news. Except for maybe folks like us who can't stop writing about it all. It's not that there's not enough to fill the news cycle as is often said by CNN, -it's that nobody has the guts (and nowadays the resources) to really do news for 24 hours. Let's face it, after you report the weather, traffic and the majors disasters of the day, you'll have to report on what's actually happening in government at that moment, in the legislature in particular... --if people saw the bullsh*t that goes on; the stalling, the grandstanding, the illicit bargaining of human lives and safety against corporate interests, and how "we the people" lose just about every single f*cking time to big industry because our so-called representatives are bought and paid for during their elections, Americans would be angry about something more important than Glenn Beck's vain fantasies about how he "wants his country back" now that the President happens to be Black or a Democrat or whatever.
It is f*cking childish.
Nobody on MSNBC or any other network afforded legitimacy and air time to people talking about revolution, secession and all that sh*t back in 2000, when the Republican candidate "won" that inarguably shady election in a state where his own brother just happened to be Governor.
No "news" network promoted rallies and protests for unions or other left and grass roots groups (or Democrats for that matter) when George W. Bush, squeaked by without taking the popular vote. Nobody asked for their country back after the 2000 election, but Fox News will interview scam artists at length who claim our President wasn't born here after their beloved GOP lost power last fall.
24 hours news reporting doesn't happen in America on major networks because it's a terrifying mixture of horror and esoterica. Actually we have it down't we, it's called C-SPAN isn't it?
And hey Vigilante, Will, Jack, please forgive the long response and typos.
-SJ
I'm going to be honest with you, SJ. I'd like to see Fox and MSNBC BOTH GO AWAY! I mean, seriously, am I the only one who's getting sick and tired of this advocacy style journalism? Sure, I watch it. But I watch ultimate fighting, too (not religiously, but sometimes). It doesn't mean that I'm proud of it (though, yes, it does sometimes stimulate me to blog). As for MSNBC and Fox not being equivalent, maybe they're not (completely). But, I'm telling, Olbermann, not only is he extreme he's nasty. And he's a liar, too. If you want some specifics, I'd be more than happy to provide them.
ReplyDeleteYes, Hannity and Colmes was bogus. No question about it. But at least there was SOME debate. Olbermann doesn't debate ANYBODY!! No contrary points of view are EVER allowed on his show. Ed Shultz has an occasional conservative on his show. But he's usually outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1.
ReplyDeleteAlright, here's a good one. This is my all-time favorite Olbermann segment. He's interviewing Howard Dean and Mr Dean submits to him that, "as much as I disagree with President Bush on a whole host of issues, I would never refer to the President as a fascist." Olbermann's face turns red and he immediately becomes silent. This, in that just a few days prior to this interview, Olbermann had done just that; referred to President Bush as a fascist. OOPS!
ReplyDelete@Will,
ReplyDeleteNoted on all counts, Keith Olbermann editorializes endlessly, I don't appreciate the attempts at comedy that I've seen him do (funny voices etc.) especially when dealing with serious issues, but Olbermann's show is not presented as an attempt at a debate show like the McLaughlin Group was etc. (Again I'm not a loyal watcher so correct me if I'm wrong), "Hannity & Colmes" was (unlike the UFC you watch) actually a lot closer to WWF. It was simply a farce, I don't think Colmes is the kind of "analyst" anyone would choose to argue their point in that context, -What issue or policy discussion did Hannity ever not get the last word on?
As for your example in the last posting, forgive me but I'm not sure what its point is, --that Howard Dean isn't cool with calling the President a Fascist, but Olbermann is? Olbermann calls President Bush a Fascist almost nightly, it's a matter of public record I would think, has Olbermann ever said he was against that sort of name-calling on principle or just when he thinks it's groundless or an incorrect assessment; which frankly is the danger of all this opinion TV you and I are assaulted with. As for Olbermann, and again feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this, he recently said that he didn't care about Joe Wilson yelling out during the President's Address on healthcare, just that he thought Joe Wilson himself was lying himself when he did it. I don't think Olbermann is some great standard bearer on name-calling since he has a worst person in the world segment, which I have to say is pretty over the top and ridiculous. I think Bill O'Reilly's a real problem for journalism and the news as an institution and tool in our Republic, but I'd get through millions of names in governments around the world and at home before I got to calling Bill O'Reilly the worst person in the world, and being that they're competitors, more than a little quetionnable.
In the end, I don't think either of us feel the need to protect the opinions of others or their right to air them on nightly "news" television. We certainly deserve better than what we're getting, Will. It's just disgraceful.
I watched Firing Line religiously when I was in college because although I disgreed with William F. Buckley profoundly on almost all policy issues, he never refused to concede difficult facts that went against his point, he never demonized the opposition or changed the subject on an opponent and he posed very serious questions that demanded answers from all Americans be they Republicans or Democrats or Independents. As a working class Liberal, I will tell you that I was very sad when he passed on last year. He was a giant in American political discourse, and I'll be damned if I see his like again in my lifetime.
I still maintain that what Fox News Channel does is way out of scale with what its competitors do. Fox uses a alleged endemic bias in the media as a license to lie, and they do it more often than any other network. I suppose we're disagreeing about a question of degrees. No harm in that.
"more than a little questionnable".. UGH. Friggin' typos.
ReplyDelete@Will,
Checked out Contra O'Reilly. Good free spirited debate on there. Cheers.
-SJ
Wow! What a thread. Allow me to add my two cents, and Vigil I apologize for the length of my post in advance:
ReplyDeleteFuck Fox...strong letter to follow......
SJ, your point is well made. For the most part, the Republicans have run most authentic conservatives out of the party. Faux Noise is the real voice of today's GOP.
ReplyDeleteI apologize if I came across as a ramrod. And I do agree with you on Fox, SJ. When Bill O'Reilly (and, yes, folks, he's actually mellowed a bit) is one of your more reasonable voices, you definitely have a problem. And have you noticed,too, most of their "liberals" are either punching bags like Colmes or Beckel, or they're moderates. Juan Williams writes for the Washington Times. Keirsten Powers writes for the New York Post. And Mort Kondracke writes for the Weekly Standard. They're moderates all. And that's fine. I'm a moderate myself. But don't go parading them all as hard core liberals. Nina Easton, another. As for Olbermann, I actually kind of liked him at first, the making fun of O'Reilly and Limbaugh especially. But he's really getting frigging weird now. And nasty. He basically engaged in character assasination with Baltomore Sun media critic, David Zurawik, saying that Zurawik was a hard-core right-winger, etc.. Zurawik is about as much of a right-winger as I am. He criticizes Fox personnel constantly, and was even accused of having "Palin Derangment Syndrome" by somebody on the right. But because he had the audacity to criticize Olbermann....I think you can fill in the blanks.
ReplyDeleteTomCat, the Republicans haven't just run out old-style conservatives. They've run out the moderates and liberals as well. The Eisenhower/Rockefeller wing is flat-out dead. All you've got left is Colin Powell and the 2 gals from Maine. It's depressing (compare this to the Dems who have Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Heath Shuler, Kent Conrad, etc., etc.).
ReplyDeleteMad Mike, will you please quit beating around the bush and tell us what you're really feeling?
ReplyDelete@Tomcat,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point about the GOP's current posture and makeup as well. My issue over the last couple of years has not just been the exodus of moderates and others from the Republican Party (Lincoln Chaffee is one big tragic example) but a certain anti-intellectual bent that's been building for a long time now.
_ _
@Will,
No worries, -no "ramrodedness" was perceived on my part. I guess I should concede that while I think the GOP is fundamentally wrong on a lot of issues, they used to be a party of actual ideas, not just policy positions, and they need to become so again, otherwise there's no point to our two party system. Today, it seems like we have a system of interests at work in Washington, and that screws everybody. For my part, I'll give anybody their day in court and hear them out as long as they're not coming at me with nonsense about who's a bigger patriot etc and I'm sure you feel the same. I still believe FNC remains a big part of this problem; squishing political discourse down to a game of winning groundless arguments.
A year ago I wrote a longwinded post lamenting what was left (remained) of the Right in our country; there's even less of it today as the GOP again looks toward Sarah Palin as if she were somehow the equivalent of a Christie Todd Whitman, or a Linda Lingle (Neither of whom I agree with but they are qualified with a capital "Q" if the GOP was insisting on going with a woman in the last election cycle, -and there are plenty more we can name without even invoking Snowe or Collins who you already referred to.
I agree, even as a pro union, working class Liberal who votes Democratic most of the time, that it's not a good thing to have an extremist partisan-driven Republican party because in the end, we still have to live by the laws that all of the Senators build regardless of whether we voted for them or not, or whether they happen to represent our states directly ot not. It's our nation Will, and I'm glad you're as worried about it as I am. Cheers.
_ _
@vigilante, -good crowd you've got on here. I like this place.
-SJ
I'm an independent, SJ, who tends to vote either Democrat or for a third party option (Anderson in '80, for example). But I always look for Republicans that I can support (like you, I want to keep both parties viable). Like in '06, I voted for Jodi Rell for Governor. And I voted Republican in the Mayoral election. So I do find them. It's just getting significantly harder, that's all.
ReplyDelete@Will,
ReplyDeleteI know what you mean. My collaborator "MyCue" on the Random Thoughts Blog predicted this increasing scarcity of Republican moderates would happen two years ago, and I told him he was crazy at the time. --He was absolutely right. It's a scary ideologicial distillation and the unfortunate result is that nobody out there feels like they have to protect small business in a meaningful way. For all my countless fundamental disagreements with the GOP, I wish they'd held onto that one principle and put it before the transnational corporations who buy both parties every cycle.
-SJ
I'm not sure how old you are, SJ, but when I was growing up there was Ed Brooke, Jacob Javits, Lowell Weicker, Dick Schweicker, Chuck Percey, Stew McKinney, a lot of decent moderates (hell, Weicker was a flat-out liberal, for Christ!). And later on there was Warren Rudman, Bill Cohen (ultimately Clinton's Defense Secretary), guys like that. Try and compare that to what we've got now. I dare anybody.
ReplyDelete@Will,
ReplyDeleteYep, it's a bygone era sadly for the most part.
Great round up of names, before "compromise" and "negotiation" became bad words. (I'm in my early 40s) so a few of these while before time as an active voter, are certainly familiar because of the length of their service. Weicker's certainly one of the more dynamic thinkers ever to be governor of any state, a true independent Republican (He's a WWE board member now if memory serves, which is just nuts although I'm sure it's probably fun work for him.) Being from New York City, I clearly had an affinity for Javitz as his legacy can still be seen around the greater state area even today.
Those moderates and independents you listed would make a great, second Mount Rushmore monument.
-SJ
@Will - you're right. That is depressing. Here in Oregon, I actually used to vote for Sen. Packwood, before he became Sen. Pokewood.
ReplyDelete@SJ - How could the GOP have become anything other than anti-intellectual, when the head of the party never even finished My Pet Goat?
@Will,
ReplyDeleteMan, I don't know. How they got behind GW Bush and instead of McCain (or several others in the GOP) back in 1999 is still something I'll never fully understand. -Granted, Bush won thanks to Karl Rove, but there's much more to this than just winning the election, clearly that must be evident now to many in that party no matter what they say publicly. Surely the GOP must see what a mistake it all was in their most private moments.
-SJ
Bob Packwood, Tomcat, I forgot about him. Even Gloria Steinem used to praise him......McCain in 2000 (the McCain OF 2000), SJ, he had a better chance to win the Democratic nomination than the Republican one. Man, do I ever miss that version of McCain.
ReplyDelete