Is there really any doubt in anyone's mind that Fox has been attacking Obama from day one? Can anyone really be that misinformed or disingenuous? Well, if you are, this video from Media Matters will disabuse you of that notion:
Half the people on there are their "news" anchors, like Brett Baier, Brit Hume, Megyn Kelly, David Asman, Neil Cavuto (I know, it's funny but they pretend he's also a straight news anchor) and Bill Hemmer, among others. If you want more undeniable examples of Fox slanting the news and presenting their own propaganda, you can read my earlier post on this (please read the articles in the links).
Come on, does anyone really believe that ACORN is the top story of the day? Every day? They just happen to pick Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, ACORN, etc. as the top news stories to cover by sheer coincidence? Or is it possible that is their obvious, ham-handed way of attacking the president on a daily basis? I can't believe we're having this argument.
But I'm more incredulous that we have the rest of the media defending Fox on this as if Obama started this fight or that he shouldn't fight back against an organization that is attacking him non-stop. So, let's make some things clear:
1. The White House is not threatening to shut down Fox News or take away their license. It's a free country. They can attack Obama all day long. But Obama also has a right to fight back. So, please stop with the histrionics about how the government is coming down on the media.
President Obama doesn't have to do them the favor of coming on their shows. It's his prerogative not to do so. According to the argument of the people defending Fox, does the president also have to go on Rush Limbaugh's program? Otherwise, is he attacking the media?
How about my show? Does the president have to come on our show to avoid charges that he is spiting all progressives? All progressive media? The whole press? Of course not, he can go on any damn show he likes.
2. There is nothing wrong with partisan press. The Nation, National Review, Air America and Fox News Channel are all ideologically driven press. The problem is that the only one lying about it is Fox News. They claim to do straight journalism when they are obviously ideologically slanted in one direction. Has anyone ever thought Fox was too liberal? Too moderate? Of course not, they're conservative.
So, Democrats should not to go on Fox News until they admit what they are. If they say they are indeed partisan press, then no problem. Everyone can go on there with the proper understanding of the context. If they continue to pretend they are doing straight, unbiased news, then why should the Democratic Party aid and abet that lie? If Fox is honest about their perspective, then the president and the Democrats should be ready to take the fight to them on their air.
3. Since I'm flabbergasted that anyone in the media would claim Fox does straight journalism, I'd like to offer a fun challenge. I will take on anyone in the press in a debate on the issue of whether Fox is really a news station or not. All comers are welcome. It's impossible to lose that debate, so it's the easiest challenge of my life.
In fact, here is an interview with Glynnis MacNicol of Mediaite where we basically had that debate:
I also had a discussion with John Nichols of The Nation on this same issue. He wrote the Whiner-in-Chief about Obama's decision to take on Fox. I obviously disagreed, but we came to the same conclusion by the end - Obama shouldn't go on Fox until they admit their conservative slant.
On Friday's show, I'll be taking on former Republican Congressman John LeBoutillier on the same topic. I'm serious; I will debate anyone in the media crazy enough to defend Fox's journalism practices. I'm amazed at the number of takers. But to paraphrase Alan Grayson, I'm on the offense and that's where I plan to stay. Batter up.