Obama Takes It to Fox, Netroots Leaves Him Out to Dry

Where are the letters to the editors (stamped envelopes still get the most attention)?   Where are emails flooding in boxes?   Where are the callers to the radio talk shows?   Where is the support for Obama on the left?

This is reminding me of August and the townhall death panel bullshit, where conservatives, and drunk, lazy, or stupid (or all three) journalists ruled the day on health care and prgressive where on holiday.  The White House has again mounted a charge only to find their troops are skulkers.

Fox News and talk radio are being allowed to define the battle ... again.   The lazy media follows their lead absent anyone else helping them write a different story.

This simple act of calling Fox News what it is was a long time coming.   I fear that without support the White House will abandon what I think is a fruitful strategy.  Independent and moderate voters in this country need to know that Fox is not news. If White House gives up Fox wins, grows more powerful, and it will be a long time before a Democratic pol tries it again.  

The White House as far as I know has not tried to muzzle anyone over at Fox the way the Bush White House did with Chris Matthews regarding the war in Iraq.  The Obama White House has not tried to get anyone at Fox fired the way the Bush White House tried to get Olbermann fired.   They simply stated an obvious fact that the collective media has been too weak, too scared to admit for many years now, Fox is biased and is 24/7 pro Republican, anti Democratic Party.

Progressives need to mount up and fight in this battle.   We need to take it to the media (especially the print media) that defends Fox.  

Tags: Fox News, President Obama (all tags)



Re: Obama Takes It to Fox

Dan Froomkin piece that I posted before, goes nice with this diary.   As usual Froomkin lays out a reasoned, detailed arguement.  Here is his take on why the media is just dead wrong in defending Fox:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23 /why-journalists-shouldnt_n_331748.html

by RichardFlatts 2009-10-26 05:32AM | 0 recs
Nutroots is too busy whining

and jumping to conclusions to worry about such things.

by JJE 2009-10-26 06:06AM | 0 recs
But But...

if we mount up and join the fight than how are we going to complain about the inevitable defeat?

by JDF 2009-10-26 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Looks Confused

Wasn't it Obama that deserted the very effective boycott against Fox in his campaign?  I would guess most are just wondering at what is at the root of the confused strategy.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-10-26 08:13AM | 0 recs
I'm not sure I follow

Obama used Fox to reach more voters, and ended up winning.  Fox tried to use the opportunity to trip him up and destroy him, but got out-manuvered.

Now that he's president, Obama has no need of their shenanigans and no reason to legitimize them.  There's a difference between a presidential candidate boycotting a hack-job network and a president doing the same.

by Dracomicron 2009-10-26 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not sure I follow

You can't really have it both ways.  Fox Noise has been what it always was: a mouthpiece for the GOP.  candidate Obama didn't seem to mind that then.  

Will incumbent Obama crawl back to Fox in 2012 despite their "shenanigans" when he will once again need to "reach more voters?"

The best thing to have happened to Fox News is this silly "war" the WH is raging against them.  If viewership was high before, it has now cemented them as the place to go for dissenting views.

by FilbertSF 2009-10-26 09:38AM | 0 recs
'Didn't mind,' what?

Obama went on Fox all of twice in the entire campaign season.  I'd say he minded; he only went there when he felt it necessary.

Why is this even an issue?  How is it a "war?"  They're simply not doing business with Fox in accordance with Fox's status as the PR wing of the Republican Party.  If they need to use them for something again, I'm sure they'll do it again.  That's what you do with tools, you use them.  Sometimes a tool is too expensive to use; in that case you use something else.

I hate to break it to you, but they were already the highest rated "place to go for dissenting views" in the first place, and have been for ten years.  This is not a new controversy, except that media outlets always want to push an opposition narrative.  Has nothing to do with Obama.

by Dracomicron 2009-10-26 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not sure I follow

Actually, it's been much worse of late.  I don't remember them organizing demonstrations then covering them as spontaneous events before.

by Drummond 2009-10-26 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not sure I follow

You really believe that his going on Fox was the tipping point?

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-10-26 03:30PM | 0 recs

It doesn't pay to take chances, and the higher his eventual lead, the greater his "political capital" after the election.  Plus it made him look both brave (for going on a hostile network) and magnanamous (for finally conceding to their requests despite reservations).

Nowendays he has plenty of opportunities to do those things without giving any credibility to Fox.  I know you don't like the guy, but he is clearly an excellent strategist.

by Dracomicron 2009-10-27 07:14AM | 0 recs
Obama Takes It to Fox, U Take it to Netroots

Is it time to criticize the left or time to rally support for Prez Obama's position? How about showing us where to write and so on in your diary? Sure you've got your "who to attack" priorities straight?

I think the escalation in Afghanistan and health care debates are a bigger deal, but I'm happy Obama is doing what he's doing.

by fairleft2 2009-10-26 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama made his bed...

I see it as, Obama chose to leave the left at:

Illegal domestic wiretapping


Guantanamo Bay


REAL Healthcare/insurance reform

Writing bills & making deals w/ lobby's.

He can have his little spat w/ FAUX NEWS on his own time...

by TxDem08 2009-10-26 04:26PM | 0 recs
that's interesting

back in 2000 I had a list like that for Al Gore and decided to vote for Nader.  Worked out pretty well, doncha think?

by JJE 2009-10-26 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: that's interesting

Sure did.  Gore's party never ignored or flippantly dismissed the grass-roots/Net-roots again, has it.

by TxDem08 2009-10-27 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: that's interesting

Until recently.....

Some comment about...history...mistakes...repeat...

You get the picture.

by TxDem08 2009-10-27 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: that's interesting

The idea that the outcome of the 2000 election caused the Democratic Party to embrace the Naderites and bring them back into the fold is one of the strangest versions of history I have ever heard.

by Steve M 2009-10-27 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: that's interesting

Amen, it's wasn't until Bushs popularity dipped below 50% that the democratic party discovered the netroots.

And i'm not sure 8 years of Bush was in anyway worth the dems eventual recognition of the the netroots. I would have taken 8 years of Gore and the dems ignoring the netroots like always anyday.

by vecky 2009-10-27 11:53AM | 0 recs
Damn straight

I'm very gratified that my efforts contributed to the primary and general election victories of President Dean.

by JJE 2009-10-27 08:56AM | 0 recs
Common Enemy

Obama is no enemy of the left, Fox is.   Wouldn't it be best to team up with the someone you disagree with often, but who is not your enemy, to go after a real foe?

by RichardFlatts 2009-10-27 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Common Enemy

No. Because that would be effective. And being effective is against progressive values.

by JDF 2009-10-27 07:25AM | 0 recs
Not to mention

that any benefit to liberal causes from discrediting Fox News will cease immediately the moment Obama leaves office.  Truly a worthless project.

by JJE 2009-10-27 08:58AM | 0 recs
Don't be silly.

The guy's never going to win the election anyway, so why do you bother supporting him?

Oh.  Wait...

by chrisblask 2009-10-27 05:14AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads