The White House Campaign Against Fox: Does It Make Sense?

Cross-posted with The Washington Times.

One of my favorite dialogues from one of my favorite plays, Fiddler on the Roof, has Tevye, the elderly font of wisdom in the village of Anatevka, Russia, trying to mediate a bitter dispute between neighbors.

He always tried to see things both ways -- he often would say, "on the one hand," and then he would say, "but on the other hand."

So one day he hears one man's argument against his neighbor's conduct, and he says, "You're right."

Then he hears the other man's argument, and he says, "You're right too."

Both of them look at him, confused, and say, "Tevye -- how can we both be right?"

And Tevye says, "You know, you are also right."

I hate to seem as if I am punting, but I kind of feel like Tevye when asked whether the White House was justified in picking a fight with Fox News Channel or whether Fox is justified in protesting that the White House has gone too far.

On the one hand, I understand the Obama White House's perspective. I worked in the Clinton White House from 1996 to 1998 and it was hard to remember a day when we didn't feel angry at some news organization (including the New York Times and the Washington Post) for what we thought was over-hyped coverage of the latest purported "scandal," which often turned out to be much ado about not much (as in Whitewater).

So I can understand why the Obama White House would be angry at Fox News Channel's evening shows. Some of the hosts, such as Glenn Beck, and the guests attack the president personally at times, using over-the-top venom reminiscent of 1930s right-wing radio commentator, Father Charles Coughlin, who accused President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal of being socialist or worse. (Sound familiar?)

It is certainly fair game for the Obama White House to fight back against this type of extreme personal attack.

Nor was the White House's public criticism of news organization all that unprecedented. Didn't President John Kennedy make a big public point about his cancellation of his subscription to the New York Herald Tribune because it was overly critical of his policies? (He quickly backtracked and "un-canceled" the subscription.)

And didn't President George W. Bush's aides frequently attack CBS News and the New York Times and favor Fox News with interviews and exclusives? As I recall, Vice President Dick Cheney frequently called Rush Limbaugh, not the liberal talk show host Bill Press.

On the other hand, the White House failed to make the distinction between Fox evening "opinion" shows, which clearly have a conservative ideological slant versus the "news" side of the organization, where there are outstanding, professional reporters such as Major Garrett, Carl Cameron, Shepherd Smith and Wendell Goler. The credibility of the White House's critique of Fox would have been higher had its spokespersons clearly and repeatedly made this distinction.

On the other hand, it is also true that Fox's news department sometimes exercises what appears to be partisan editorial judgments, such as its coverage of the conservative "tea parties," which seemed overdone. Indeed, for Democrats watching, Fox News sometimes seemed as if it was promoting the tea party rallies like an arm of the Republican National Committee, rather than covering them as a news organization.

On the other hand, conservatives feel the same way about liberal bias of most mainstream news organizations in their selection of what news to cover and what not. And if Fox was perceived as over-playing the tea parties, conservatives perceived that MSNBC, the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets underplayed or were slow to fully report the ACORN scandal.

So, if we are to be honest, what is "objective" or "legitimate" news coverage is often in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

On the other hand, the White House clearly crossed a line and created a backlash even among Fox's competitors when, late last week, it attempted to exclude a Fox reporter from participating in a shared "pool" interview with the Executive compensation Czar Kenneth Feinberg. The result was a threat by all the other competitor TV news organizations to boycott the interview unless the decision to exclude Fox was reversed. (It quickly was).

This sympathy generated for Fox as a result of the White House's error reminded me of the famous sarcastic line from the movie about the Watergate scandal, All the President's Men. Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee told Carl Woodward and Bob Bernstein when they misreported an accusation about H.R. Haldeman, President Nixon's widely despised White House chief of staff: "You guys certainly did it -- you found a way to create sympathy in this town for Haldeman."

On the other hand, I also don't quite understand the over-heated reaction of Fox News hosts and guests to the criticisms by the Obama White House. They can dish it out pretty good -- you would think they wouldn't have such thin skin when they got some of their own medicine back.

Nor could I take seriously the criticism by Fox hosts and guests that President Obama chose to meet with liberal MSNBC talk show hosts Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, liberal New York Times columnist Frank Rich, and other liberal pundits. The hypocrisy is too laughable. There was certainly no criticism from Fox hosts when President Bush invited conservative talk show hosts -- including a leading Fox host -- to meet in the Oval Office.

On the other hand, I question the wisdom of the White House's decision to skip the "Fox News Sunday" when the president went out to do all the other Sunday morning shows. Host Chris Wallace is a pro and his show is a good platform with an influential opinion- leader audience to help shape Monday morning headlines. (On the other hand, I did find Mr. Wallace's interview of President Clinton to be overly provocative and unfair; maybe that was a factor in the decision).

Nor does it makes sense to me that the White House boycotts all of the Fox evening shows. Fox has by far the largest audience in the evenings -- larger than MSNBC and CNN combined. The demographics show that the Fox audience contains substantial numbers of Democrats and independents.

I see no advantage not to try to speak to this audience. Most of them are what pollsters call "persuadables." I am a liberal Democrat and a strong supporter of Mr. Obama and his policies on these shows. When I choose to accept an invitation to be on Fox (I was briefly a paid Fox contributor during both conventions but now appear as a volunteer), I am always given a chance to present my point of view. I hope I am persuading those watching who have open minds.

It is a fact that at least the Olbermann and Maddow shows on MSNBC are not only openly liberal and pro-Obama (which is fine with me), but unfortunately, they rarely if ever invite conservative Republicans on to present an opposing viewpoint. Even I don't get invited onto Mr. Olbermann's and Ms. Maddow's shows, although I agree with their views 90 percent of the time and Mr. Olbermann is an old friend from Clinton Wars days.

On the other hand, unlike the aberrant slice of the American population who live and breathe politics 24/7 and thus watch cable TV political shows in the morning, at night, and sometimes all day (such as your truly -- I know, I am pathetic), I am guessing most Americans think this whole battle of the White House vs. Fox is irrelevant to their daily lives and to what they really care about -- irrelevant to health care, unemployment, record deficits and public debt, the threat of global warming, two wars, the frightening danger of another terrorist attack, and the potential of Iran's radical mullahs
possessing a nuclear weapon.

These are just a few issues that most normal people think are far more important than the White House's anger towards Fox, and Fox's anger at the White House's anger.

On the other hand....

There is no other hand.

Lanny J. Davis, a Washington lawyer and former special counsel to President Clinton, served as a member of President George W. Bush's Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. He is the author of "Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics is Destroying America." This piece is also published at http://pundits.thehill.com/author/lanny-davis.

This piece will appear in Mr. Davis's regular Monday column on p. A4 of the Washington Times, entitled "Purple Nation" and in The Hill/Pundits Blog on Monday, October 26, 2009. The Monday column is the subject of interviews on Sirius/XM's popular POTUS "Press Pool," with Joe Mathieu, some time between 12-2 pm EDT every Monday.

Mr. Davis also writes a regular weekly column for Washington D.C. daily newspaper, "The Hill," appearing on Thursdays, and entitled "Politics and Counsel." Both columns are also usually posted on the day of publication in The Huffington Post.com, Fox News.com, and Newsmax.com in addition to TheHill.com/PunditsBlog.

 

Comments

[Indon]

"On the other hand, the White House clearly crossed a line and created a backlash even among Fox's competitors when, late last week, it attempted to exclude a Fox reporter from participating in a shared "pool" interview with the Executive compensation Czar Kenneth Feinberg."

FYI, this never happened. Fox fabricated this story, as you can find by taking a look at the Huffington Post article about the incident, which has been updated with links to what actually happened.

I think that perhaps the most accurate assessment of the situation regarding Fox would come from someone who is properly aware of the organization's credibility.

[stinger3]

The White House Campaign Against Fox: Does It Make Sense?

First off its not a Campaign, you are making it a campaign or say they have some political reason, they are just telling the truth and doing what is necessary for survival and vindicating all the people that say fox is just another arm of the republican party, just as WSJ is just another part of Fox News or News Corp. Wall Street journal is owned by News Corp, the same people that own Fox, that makes WSJ just another part of the republican propaganda.

[ccopas]

Actually I think their attack on Fox is an example of good strategy. Just when we're about to pass healthcare most of the news channels are jumping over themselves to cover this silly story...an­d not healthcare­...at least as much....Cl­assic bait and switch :) Go Obama!!!

[BlackJAC]

Let's put it this way, Lanny: would you invite to whatever gathering you're holding at your house that one royal jerk who goes out of his way to insult and deride you regardless of how you treat him?

[cgoodie]

Fox News cannot be ignored by the White House....t­hey are too insidious in their intentions.

[decotodd]

Direct Link to the article I refer to above: http://mediamatters.org/research/200910270043

[decotodd]

Sorry Mr. Davis --- Media Matters has laid waste to the claims of distinction between Fox news and opinion shows. Just today, they have a post detailing how Chris Wallace carries the Beck talking points to his show to push smears. Have a look mediamatters.orgg)

[level headed]

"It is a fact that at least the Olbermann and Maddow shows on MSNBC are not only openly liberal and pro-Obama (which is fine with me), but unfortunately, they rarely if ever invite conservative Republicans on to present an opposing viewpoint.­"

I think that "not openly liberal" is technically accurate because those two particular shows are more "openly partisan democrat" than "openly liberal". A nightly digest of attacks on FoxNews, Republicans and "tea baggers" gets old.

"And didn't President George W. Bush's aides frequently attack CBS News and the New York Times and favor Fox News with interviews and exclusives?"

As I recall, the NYT was criticized for publicizing secret anti-terrorist operations and CBS News was criticized for publishing a partisan election-timed attack on Bush based on forged documents.

[blizb]

Uncle Pat and many Republicans appear on Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews. The famous Zell Miller tape is only one of many.

They are also hard on Obama if you watch regularly, if you look at the MSNBC website there are many times all of the political headlines are questioning Obama.

Rachel has relentlessly asked Republican, Independent, and Conservative individuals to appear on her show and they almost always decline.

Of all the hosts on television she got so much attention because she really is different in her approach and is the most eager to present both sides for the sake of argument.

She is well researched and good at arguing a point so she is frequently turned down for interviews.

You can't very well present both sides if the right wing or independents won't show up for the debate.

[ccopas]

I have to disagree with you. I'm not sure about Olberman but I know Rachel has invited many conservatives on her show and had amazing debates and discussion­s...Maddow is one of the best journalists on TV today!

[seawolf77]

Oh please I have heard about the liberal bias for years. Does it make sense the "war" with FOX? What's the alternative? Get chummy with them. Send a spokesman. Give me a scenario where anything good comes out of cooperation with FOX. Are they going to support his efforts, be even more "fair and balanced." What? I ask you what?

[OLJW00]

Since when are news organizations defined by their willingness to support the Gov't. Fox is the most powerful news organization in the US and as the Gov't works for the people, and the largest percentage of those watching a cable news network is Fox....to ignore them is to slap a large number of American's in the face, tainted by proxy.

Last I checked it's still a free country and you have the ability to watch another channel.

[cgoodie]

There you go again. Calling them a news organization. Just because they are widely watched and occassionally report on actual news does not make them legitimate­.. I put them in the same category as The Daily Show except not as funny.

[BlackJAC]

"Since when are news organizations defined by their willingness to support the Gov't?" Since that first airliner made a right turn and firewalled it into the North Tower on 9/11. Now show us your birth certificate.

[wenchie]

Mr. Davis concludes.­..

"On the other hand, unlike the aberrant slice of the American population who live and breathe politics 24/7 and thus watch cable TV political shows in the morning, at night, and sometimes all day (such as your truly -- I know, I am pathetic), I am guessing most Americans think this whole battle of the White House vs. Fox is irrelevant to their daily lives and to what they really care about -- irrelevant to health care, unemployment, record deficits and public debt, the threat of global warming, two wars, the frightening danger of another terrorist attack, and the potential of Iran's radical mullahs
possessing a nuclear weapon.
These are just a few issues that most normal people think are far more important than the White House's anger towards Fox, and Fox's anger at the White House's anger."

Yep...that pretty much describes me, and I am someone who breathes news and politics.