What I've Learned From Fox News' Susan Estrich

I love Fox News Channel's Susan Estrich. Not because she's a Democrat who's managed to infiltrate the White House's cable news propaganda network. That's not why. I love and admire her because of her exemplary qualifications. Like Napoleon Dynamite, her qualifications don't include bowhunting skills, numchuck skills, and computer hacking skills. But I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Her qualifications as a you-name-it far outweigh mine, and that's a quality I admire. Thankfully, she took the time to pass along some advice.

In her Sunday column on Fox News Channel's website, Estrich wrote about my Huffington Post article from last week in which I criticized the growing trend of whites-only rhetoric on the FNC pundit shows.

Within the first half of her piece, she questioned my qualifications to swim in the deep end. However her qualifications are, well, pretty amazing. She listed some of them in her article, which was weird because I never questioned her credentials or the credentials of O'Reilly, Gibson, Hannity, or Snow. Never-the-less, she's proud of her resume, so it's worth repeating here:

"Unlike Mr. Cesca, I not only have worked for every network, I also worked, formally or informally, for every Democratic candidate to run for president in the 1980's and 1990's. I understand the difference between running on the left and losing, and running in the center and winning. I wrote three Democratic Party platforms."

Make up your own jokes about the last sentence.

None of that bugged me. I'm aware of my career status, as are many writers and bloggers who, like me, aren't political strategists, career journalists, or network pundits, yet whom exercise their right to voice their opinions. What truly caught me off guard was that Estrich never actually made a case to defend what O'Reilly, Gibson, and Snow said other than to mention that she knows these guys and insists that they aren't racists.

Maybe off the air, they're not. I don't know. But their statements on the air certainly sounded racist to anyone with reasonable listening skills. Taken as a group, these talking points signaled a possible whites-only trend coming from Fox News. Yet Estrich didn't defend or denounce the statements made on Fox. She only seemed to defend the character and job descriptions of the hosts, which leads me to believe that deep down, she gets what I was suggesting while only superficially shaking her fists and stomping her feet at those who criticize Fox News.

"I'm mad as you know what, and don't want to take it anymore."

Dag. She's pissed. Yet in her article she admits to taking any position that'll win an argument or get votes for her candidate. So who knows.

So let's assume she has no problem with what O'Reilly and Gibson said. Further, allow me to put my statements about O'Reilly and Gibson in other terms. Estrich is known, amongst other things, for her feminism. I'm not sure why she would defend people who consider Rush "Feminazis" Limbaugh an ideological colleague, but that's her call. I wonder, however, if she would be so quick to defend O'Reilly and the rest had they said, "...make more MALE babies," or, "According to the lefty zealots, the white MALE Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new GENDER EQAULITY tide."

O'Reilly would never say such a thing because he loves and respects women, so much so that he (allegedly) shares his soapy falafels with them. Chivalry isn't dead! Some people say he likes to call them on the phone from a position of power in order to, what's the word? Harass them? At least, that's what some people are saying. Oh, and he never lies on his show. Never ever. How could I possibly have been so insane as to question his character.

Moving on.

"Mr. Cesca's mistake, and it is a common one, is that he confuses reporters and anchors, who are paid to be objective and cover the news, and do so, with commentators and hosts, who are expected to put forward a point of view. Is there anyone in the world who would expect impartiality from Bill O'Reilly? From Sean Hannity?"

I'm well aware of the difference, though I'm not exactly sure where in my article I confused the two varieties of talking television people thingies. O'Reilly, Hannity, Gibson: commentator shaped guys. Check. Not expected to be objective. Check.

No-one expects objectivity from pundits. We do, however, expect them to be responsible given that the big ones are opinion-makers who shape public discourse often more so than politicians. So for instance, they shouldn't fabricate the existence of a French newspaper in order to pat themselves on the back for a silly boycott. Fact: sometimes, a pundit will relate facts. Fact: sometimes those facts are, in reality, lies. I don't know nothing about nothing, but the facts found within a pundit show should in theory be, you know, factual.

"What about Brit Hume and Brian Wilson and Carl Cameron and Ramblin' Rick and Steve Harrigan and Shep Smith and Laurie Dhue and the hundreds of other people who do their jobs every day without giving anyone a hint of who they support in their private lives?"

Brit Hume is both a news reporting guy and a commentator-shaped guy. By the way, am I getting the terms right? Anyway, Brit Hume bobbles his head with the best of them so he's a horrible example of objective journalism. Sadly, Fox News isn't alone in mixing opinion and news by employing anchors for pundit shows. But Brit Hume? What an odd choice for Estrich's list.

But some are saying that other Fox News anchors and reporters deliver news that's assembled in a way that promotes the Republican Party and the administration. The Fox News pro-Bush/Republican agenda is carefully planned so that any story harmful to the administration is downplayed, while other stories are emphasized either to make the administration look good or to distract viewers from bad news about the president (see the recent 24/7 missing girl stories). I mean, they're not even subtle about it. Some people have said that so-called "objective" reporters on Fox News use the deceptive phrase "some people are saying" as a clever disguise for their own opinions. The FNC agenda can be found at every level; from the election night shenanigans in 2000 all the way down to the substitution of "homicide bombers" for the widely used "suicide bombers".

There's a reason the vice president demands that all his televisions be tuned to FNC. It's not just because he's envious of Hannity's hair line.

"Enough is enough. What gives people who have never worked a day in the news business the right to throw stones and call names with impunity, because Fox News is the target?"

So the only people who can voice opposition are those who have actually done the work? Put aside that many opinion writers, including me, have in fact worked in the journalism field. Does every movie critic have to actually produce a film before ripping a movie? Does every sports fan have to hit a big league homer before criticizing Barry Bonds? Like I said, I admire Estrich's work, but this statement was a bit on the hackish side, no? It was trite and easy. Actually, it was the only thing Estrich wrote that literally angered me only because she's more talented and smarter than that.

Then again, it makes sense. And this is the key to Estrich's argument. Rather than addressing the issue, she's taken the discourse down a different road and the original topic has been subverted. I've fallen for it. And this is how issues -- winning issues -- are sometimes lost. Not because they're unpopular or because 54-year-olds are incapable of changing their minds. Liberals and progressives have a tendency to lose on certain issues because the debate is taken off the playing field by the opposition. Instead of discussing racism or stem cell research, we're baited into debating right-wing red herrings like swift boats and bogus wars on Christmas.

I'm glad Estrich wrote the article, though. The lessons I ultimately gathered from the piece are as follows: we have to start compromising our opinions and values rather than taking unpopular or difficult positions; we have to be well-paid career politicos and journalists in order to criticize politicians and journalists; O'Reilly and Gibson aren't reporters so they can say anything no matter how racist or devoid of fact; and there's someone called "Ramblin' Rick" on the Fox News Channel.

Duly noted. As a junior nothing, I'm glad to take such stellar advice.

One question, though, since she works with these guys and would know better than most. Do chickenhawks have large talons?

UPDATE: Full analysis of Estrich's article at Media Matters.

---
THE WAR EFFORT on DVD