What's Obama's Fox News Strategy?

I have a hard time believing it is simple venting - Emanuel specifically had to expect a knife fight in the trenches for the entire eight years.

Instead, I am most inclined to believe it is mostly Rally & Influence.

Rally because, as you admit, Obama has been forced to (at the least) backtrack on a host of campaign promises (see also transparency, Telecom Immunity, etc.).

Influence because the administration is annoyed that so much of the neutral to friendly media outlets are wasting the White House's time with these Fox sideshows (especially when the Republican Party proper's formal response to Obama's proposals usually amounts to "nuh-uh").

Still, how's that "candidate of conciliation" working out...

Fox News is not the first to hold Obama's feet to the fire. Progressive Democrats are clearly aware that the president speaks with a fork tongue.

THE PEACE MOVEMENT: "Woolsey said others in the peace movement are holding their fire because they are “so relieved that we will have a leader they can trust,” even as, she said, they are “counting on the progressives in the Congress to keep his feet to the fire." CBS News 11/08

GAY RIGHTS: "“He needs to say, ‘Don't fire people from my military,' which is his responsibility,” Choi said - He said he has learned in the service that the biggest insult to a soldier who screws up is to say, “It's all right; we'll ignore it; because we didn't expect any better out of you.” He said, “I refuse to insult my president by ignoring this issue. We need to hold his feet to the fire. San Francisco Bay Times 8/09

FOX follow the advice of Rep. Woolsey and Lt. Dan Choi:

KEEP OBAMA'S FEET TO THE FIRE!

I am loving that you, a TIME magazine employee, which is a subsidiary of CNN, is using the Daily Show, as a source, especially because I am 20 year old college student, so I watch the Daily Show fairly often, and know for a Fact that the day before the clip you used aired, Jon Stewart informed us of how good of a job the CNN anchors and reporters do at fact checking. I am not saying FOX is right for ignoring the Gay Rights Movement, but they are just doing what the rest of Mainstream Media, which should just be called liberal media, did to other news worthy information because it was a conservative side of the story. SO NO NEWS STATION IS FAIR AND UNBIASED!

I still find it funny that because FoxNews does not conform to everyone else in the main stream media they are picked on so much. Sure they air some crazy stuff but they are simply offering a different perspective. It is ironic to me that we have to discuss perspective at all when talking about the news since it is supposed to be fair and unbiased, but that is how things are in this country.
I think Obama is kind of like Saruman from Lord of the Rings in that his power comes from when he speaks. He is a very good speaker and sucks people in to believing whatever he says. He is going on the offensive against people who are not sucked in and who may keep other people from remaining under the influence of his words. So he does have a lot to gain, the silence of detractors and the unwavering support of the sheep.

[...] original here: What's Obama's Fox News Strategy? – Tuned In – TIME.com Share and [...]

I watch FOX News, mainly because it's like watching a circus. I also read, and have contributed, to TIME magazine. I also frequent the Huffington Post, CNN (both online and on cable), MSNBC; you name it. I can see the validity in attempting to argue that FOX is just a different, and conservative, perspective on events... but frankly, that's just not a factual statement. Every news organization puts it's own ideological spin on events: FOX news, however, manufactures events, and then spews vitriol at the other news outlets for ignoring these "important" stories.
Take, for instance, the Teaparty movement. Glenn Beck has recently suggested these activists deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, not Obama. He, and the other broadcasters on Fox, have kept this relatively small, uberconservative movement, at the forefront of the 24 news cycles (regardless of channel), for weeks. While I'm not arguing that Obama earned the Prize, what I am arguing is that Fox completely manufactured the story. They funded and created the movement, gave it a national platform (I would argue it isn't exactly deserving of one), and then lambast the other news agencies for under-reporting the "millions of activists" who showed up in DC, and for refusing the admit how unhappy Americans are with Obama's policies, etc. If this movement was grassroots and spontaneous, I would agree. However, it is a byproduct of the Town Hall meetings; one of Bill O'Reilly's campaign suggestions to John McCain for his Republican presidential bid. See where all of this is going?
I agree with the White House on this issue... FOX News is definitely not a reliable news outlet.

PS- As per this ACORN scandal, though I'm not arguing that what they were doing was either moral or legal, I have serious doubts as to the spontaneity, or objectiveness, of the pimp-and-hooker team who caught it on film. Journalism isn't about having an ideological bias, and then searching for stories to reinforce it. It's about waiting for news to happen, accurately recording the facts, and then presenting them in as unbiased a fashion as is possible to an audience.

I am so impressed with all the negative attention Fox noise has recieved as of late.This is all about ratings by inlisting the help of fictional characters that call them selves News Journalists(second rate at best...)

Yes its true the Fox Network will always have a "Fringe" audience...hey their is nothing wrong with comming in last in over all network ratings its because it appeals to a smaller audience stupid!

[...] the Cubans...we're no where near that bad."  Wealth re-distribution, centralization of power, and increased pressure on media outlets to stop criticizing the government are three HUGE steps in the wrong direction and [...]

Fox news is a bunch of bold faced liars. People may not be convinced otherwise by the words of the President but that only makes them fools.

I concur. Well said. I fully appreciate all views and perspectives to keep any and all in check and balance. I wouldn't do away with any of these guys. In my opinion, everyone is doing what they are supposed to be doing. I like most of these guys. In fact I watch the O'Reilly show everyday and have for as long as I can remember. I even watch Beck and Hannity. I don't follow left wing media snippets because I actually watch the shows and can quote these guys everyday.

However, there is something else going on here. Beck, Rush, Palin and Hannity consider anybody that is not similar to them philosphically as not truly American. And only persons similar to them are right to govern this country. And from them it spreads to the GOP. Boehner, Grahm, Cantor and Steele seem to send a message that everyone that is not GOP is an enemy of the state. The GOP as it is represented now is shameful to our country and what we stand for as a free and constitutional society. This movement of theres' is divisive and hate motivated. The tone in their voice and content of there words are hatred. The GOP does not represent American ideals. In general, they represent selfishness above all else.

It's all political power play. I can see through the clouds all day that even the Nobel Peace Prize was given to Obama out of political consideration. But for one moment, can these guys stop their toxicity and stand by as a cohesive American and say well done Mr. President. Congratulations. You make me proud to be an American because regardless of different views on policy you have restored global confidence in America as a leading nation of ideals.

Granted, we have lots of work to be done to make anything of this change real or meaningfull. We still have to see if any of this will bear fruit for us. I'm just saying I would like to see these guys put down their guns for a moment and stand with the rest of us and contribute to a positive tone about all Americans.

The other day I listed my views and where I stand on social and philosophical issues for myself so I can better define my political position. By my position, I find that I am a very progessive conservative and traditional. But, at this time I don't support any of the GOP's agenda. They don't have a policy agenda to support. Seriously no policy. Their agenda at this moment in time is to derail and discredit Obama and the Democratic Party. I do support the bulk of the Democrats' policy agenda and I have for years. Since I was old enough to vote, their platform has consistenly been about equal rights, health care and environmental stewardship. I don't care how these challenges are met or what party champions them. The point is that they get done and that there is a political party that champions these issues and has them on their platform. Those three issues right there is what Gore, Kerry and Obama campaigned for and debated about. None of these issues have been championed by the GOP since I can remember. These issues are not even liberal issues. They are just issues period. If the GOP or represenatives of supposed conservatism would take on any of these policies as their goals, then I would praise and support them.

The GOP at anypoint could have adopted these issues and directed policy from the "conservative" platform. These issues are not even on their radar. Imagine if the GOP was leading the way on going green, or helpping our citizens reclaim their lives as healthy human beings or if they taught tolerance for gays and other religions.

Recall the primaries, I checked all the candidates' websites for both parties and was looking for their top ten priorites for our country if they become president. Huckabee was the only one that had education and healthcare on his list. From my recollection, not a single other GOP candidate had either one or both of those on their lists. However, every single Democrat had it on their list and they had it in their top 3.

In the end I care about tolerance for all people different from me as long as they are not harming others. I care about education, health and the environment. I care about the freedom to be anybody we want and do anything we want. I care about people living full lives and truly enjoying their lives. What I just listed is not conservative, liberal, libertarian, Dem or GOP. They are just things we all need to live a good life. So whoever stands in the way of these issues is standing in my way and right now the GOP and associates are standing in my way.

Peace.

It is stupid to expect every news organization to kiss his ass. Obviously Mr. Obama has no experience with being criticized.

Get over it. Grow up.

Not every news organization can kiss ass like NBC and CNN.

And don't forget, most people under 30 get their news from Comedy Central.

It seems that, sadly, most liberals can't distinguish between "news" and "commentary" when it comes to a conservative or non-liberal point of view. Beck, O'Reilly, and Hannity are commentators, just like Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow, who are on MSNBC. But because Beck et al, are on Fox, all of Fox News is biased? Hhhmmm . . .

OK, let's pretend that makes sense. If that is true, then MSNBC must be biased as well. So we now have a liberal-biased network and a conservative-biased network. Everything is in balance, life is good. So why are the liberals still complaining about Fox? Oh, I forgot, no one watches MSNBC, so the liberal slant isn't getting enough publicity but the conservative slant is.

As for brainchecco's tea party comments (non-grass roots, therefore worth ignoring), brian needs to wake up. The liberals have lots of non-grass roots orgs out there pushing the liberal agenda, and many of them are or have been getting federal funds to boot. It's all a big game, Brian. It's all about power and money. And every four years, each side tries to get new recruits (voters) and a new battle is fought. Have you ever heard of a "poor" politician, Brian?

I don't understand why "news outlets" do no actual research on the administrations claim? From an older article:

"As for Dunn's complaint about Fox News' coverage of the Obama campaign, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.

On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories—a spread of 59 points."

Just a note to scottomarsh in his praise for the Dems -- you stated, "Since I was old enough to vote, their platform has consistenly been about equal rights, health care and environmental stewardship." I'm not sure how old you are Scott, but it is the Republicans who got the Civil Rights legislation passed. As for health care, the Republicans proposed Medicare, and the Dems shot it down until Johnson got elected and he made it his program. And I don't think the Republicans are all that opposed to enviromental stewardship -- they are just a bit less radical about it than the Dems. It all comes back to "the game."

The Obama-Fox Circus

World Net Daily notes that several Democratic magazine and newspaper advocates such as Doug Heye, a US News Democrat, and David Zurawik, a Democratic Baltimore Sun "media critic" (sic) have criticized Mr. Obama for "attacking" Fox. According to Democratic Time Magazine "media critic (sic) James Poniewozik:

"Lately the Obama Administration has—in TIME and other outlets—been actively going on the attack against Fox News. The Administration, and Obama himself, have had run-ins with Fox before, but this time the message is different: they're characterizing the cable channel as not just a conservative outlet, but as a political organization, devoted to undermining the White House and defeating its policies."

In Roman Times the Emperors gave the Roman proletarians free bread (the first mass welfare system) and circus via the Coliseum to keep them quiet, and kept most of the spoils of conquest to themselves and their well-placed equestrian and senatorial supporters. Of course, few in the Roman establishment, the equivalent of today's Democratic Party, would question or discuss the Roman system. A similar system exists today.

In America there is little disagreement between Rockefeller Republicans, represented by Fox, and the Democrats. It is true Glenn Beck has attracted libertarians, but he is only one small voice of many voices on Fox.

Neither Fox nor Obama questioned the most corrupt wealth transfer to the ultra-rich in American history--the bailout of Wall Street last fall. Indeed, Obama amplified the corruption that the Bush administration initiated. They worked together on a five trillion dollar subsidy to the ultra rich, making the unfounded and nonsensical claim, supported by university economists, that the money was necessary to stop a depression, even though the amounts were sufficient to provide $30,000 in welfare payments to 30% of the workforce for five years.

Fox could have criticized Bush at the one point in the last decade where criticism would have been productive, but Fox chose to support the corrupt bailout, as did Obama.

The Progressive (in the Theodore Roosevelt-Rockefeller-Bush sense) Republicans and the Democrats represent the same corrupt vested interests. Fox is largely the mouthpiece of the Roosevelt-Rockefeller-Bush Republicans, and with the exception of Beck DOES NOT represent mainstream Republicans.

The interests whom Fox and Obama both represent have every interest in providing a circus. By making voters think that there is a Republican-Obama debate, they will be distracted from their main concerns: the destruction of future economic opportunity and the impoverishment of their children; inflation and the weakening of the dollar; the Fed's transfer of productive Americans' wealth to the wealthy; increasingly aggressive socialist control of people's education and lifestyles; and government enforced secular humanism.

The Obama-Fox debate is entertaining for those who choose to watch Republicrat news outlets like Fox. But see it for what it is: A circus.

http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-fox-circus.html

Hmmm, nobody seems to notice that the way Obama talks about Fox News is almost exactly the way Chavez talks, well talked about opposition to him in media before he seized control of them. I'm not suggesting Obama wants to take over media, but that they are brothers in spirit more than Obama would like you to know. I'm sure Obama will keep attacking the opposition with loose facts, however. I see too many falsehoods spouted as facts in here. People are so gullible when they want to believe what you say.

What??? Who would ever believe that Roger Ailes, Pres of Fox News, is a partisan political figure!

"Ailes served as a political consultant for many Republican candidates during the 1960s, 70s and 80s. His first such job was as media advisor for the Nixon campaign in 1968. He returned to presidential campaigning as a consultant to Ronald Reagan in 1984. He is widely credited with having coached Reagan to victory in the second presidential debate with Walter Mondale.

In 1988 Ailes was credited (along with Lee Atwater) with guiding George H. W. Bush to a come-from-behind [9] victory over Michael Dukakis. Ailes and Lee Atwater scripted and produced the "Revolving Door" ad. He did not produce the Willie Horton ad, which was directed and produced by the National Security Political Action Committee (NSPAC), but Democrats later charged the Bush campaign with illegally coordinating the ads with the NSPAC. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) investigated the charge and deadlocked on a 3-3 vote."

Roger Ailes is Mr. Neutral!

"In 1991, Ailes convinced a syndicator to bring Rush Limbaugh from radio to television and became executive producer of the late-night show."

[...] What's Obama's Fox <b>News</b> Strategy? – Tuned In – TIME.com [...]

He was born as a conservative political operative, he was raised as a political operative, he worked his entire first career as a the most ultra conservative political operative... and he changed overnight??

Today, Roger Ailes (Pres of Fox News) is STILL an ultra conservative strategist for the Republican Party and he is using his bully pulpit to spread the religion. Look at the history! He says something on Monday and the Republican leadership startes mouthing HIS SAME WORDS on Tuesday.

Swint, Kerwin. "Dark Genius: The Influential Career of Legendary Political Operative and Fox News Founder Roger Ailes." New York: Union Square Press, 2008.

@jgradgus...

I'm not really sure where to begin addressing your post, though I must have been doing something right, since you singled me out. No one is denying that "grassroots" is a misnomer, but you're obviously completely missing the point of my post...

The point I'm making is about FOX proposing the movement (a product of Mr. Beck, and O'Reilley; an offshoot of McCain's Town Halls), supplying the movement with it's own political spin and agenda (just as on could argue that Limbaugh has been the ideological head of the GOP for years), covering it incessantly (while accusing other station's of bias for their lack of interest in it), and giving it a far larger platform than such a small movement of the conservative ideological base warrants.
Now, I see from your smug-yet-witty comments, that you believe journalism is proactive; and it is, to some extent. The distinction I'm trying to draw is that there is a difference between reporting on events which have actually occurred, and manufacturing news so that your station can cover it first. A real journalist doesn't burn down a building to report on an arson. FOX news, with this Teabagger's movement, has crossed over into the latter. And that's definitely not "journalism," however you choose to define it.

Also, jgradus, as intelligent as your condescending tone makes you sound, have you ever heard of this thing called "courteous intellectual debate?" Apparently, it's this brand new craze all the kids are trying out. Take the plunge?

I love all the attempts on here to illigitimize Fox News. If they aren't worth the time of day, then why such the attacks from the White House of all places (until freedom of speech is abolished) and such animous name calling from the incredibly intelligent left? That silly cable channel Fox News. They sure have everyone's panties in a bunch.

No, Scott, I'm not missing your point. I singled you out because of your opening statement. You are obviously a liberal saying that you watch Fox News. That's a bit hard to believe, especially when you say you agree with the White House contention that "Fox News" is not a reliable news outlet, and that Fox News, "manufactures events, and then spews vitriol at the other news outlets for ignoring these "important" stories." You pointed to the tea parties as proof of this, and said that Beck and O'Reilly were behind the tea parties.

Fox News is not Beck and O'Reilly, or Hannity, for that matter. These three guys are commentators who have shows on the Fox News Channel. When the commentary shows are not on, the Fox News Channel does "news," same as CNN, and same as MSNBC. The situation today is no different from Nixon and his enemies list. History is just repeating itself.

While I would agree that Beck and O'Reilly have encouraged conservatives to organize and speak out, I think it's a pretty big leap for anyone to say that the Fox News Channel "funded and created the (tea party) movement." No one has provided any proof of this to my knowledge, but the liberal media sure has been inferring it -- as a justification to ignore it. But let's not forget that Obama only got 51% of the popular vote -- hardly an overwhelming mandate for him. That means 49% of the people in this country were not "for him" or his positions/policies. So why is it so hard for liberals to accept the fact that people are going to protest him, the same way people protested Bush, who also didn't have an overwhelming mandate?

And, yes, a good part of journalism is proactive. It is called "investigative journalism." Watergate is just one example of good investigative journalism. Forty years ago, investigative journalism was practiced by all the big media outlets. It has been sorely lacking in recent years.

And finally, yes I have heard of "courteous debate." You start, then I'll jump in . . .

Is this really "news"? Of course Fox is a political entity... They have been since their inception. We've all known this forever. They are the voice of the republican party. Always have been. This isn't new. Remember the dismal Bush years? If you listened to Fox News then it often sounded like Bush has a 95% approval rating. Listen to the adjectives they use to describe Dems in the House. Listen to the adjectives they used to describe the men & women with the "R" next to their names. Listen to their tone. The White House is right that Fox is not in the business of journalism like other news organizations. Of course they aren't. They're interested in the ultra conservative side of the story. It is very difficult to separate their talk show hosts from their so called "news" anchors. Their belittling tone of the left has always been there. No one has called them out on it like the White House has. But they've always separated themselves as a "from the right" perspective. I'm a centrist but I say, "good for this administration!" I'm no fan of ANY of the cable news networks because they're all a bit flashy for me. I like certain people on all the networks and occasionally watch them, except I don't really have anyone that I like on Fox. I've tried. I like to keep an open mind. Fox is biased. Everyone knows that. What's to debate? Well, if I prefer any reporting station then I prefer the BBC when they're reporting on the issues in which I'm interested in hearing. An old friend once told me: If you want the read about what's going on in the world, read the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal in the morning. Somewhere in between is what's going on in the world. Well, I guess that was before News Corp. bought the WSJ, which was when i stopped reading it. Where to turn? Is there any conservative news organization that isn't extreme? They're hard to find.

[...] Poniewozik, “What’s Obama’s Fox News Strategy?” Time’s “Tuned In” Blog, [...]