Keeping the Fox out of the  White House
 
 
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2009-10-14-common-ground_N.htm#open-share-help)
 

By _Chuck Raasch_ 
(http://www.usatoday.com/community/tags/reporter.aspx?id=121) , Gannett 
National Writer 
USA TODAY  
 
 
WASHINGTON — Apparently, the Obama White House believes  in diplomacy with 
_Mahmoud Ahmadinejad_ 
(http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Politicians,+Government+Officials,+Strategists/World+Leaders/Mahmoud+Ahmadinejad)
 
 but not _Glenn Beck_ 
(http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Journalists,+Media,+Academia/Glenn+Beck)
 .
Two days after the president won the _Nobel Peace Prize_ 
(http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Events+and+Awards/Nobel+Peace+Prize) 
, _Barack 
Obama_ 
(http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Politicians,+Government+Officials,+Strategists/Executive/Barack+Obama)
 's communications director was 
on national  television essentially declaring a message war on a major 
cable network that  employs the abrasive commentator Beck, who recently called 
the president a  racist. 
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn accused _Fox News_ 
(http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Companies/Publishers,+Media,+M
usic/Fox+News+Channel)  of operating "as either the research arm or  the 
communications arm of the _Republican_ 
(http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Political+Bodies/Republican+Party)
  Party." 
It's hard to understand this as a calculated move for a  White House that 
has far bigger things to worry about — Iranian President  Ahmadinejad's 
nuclear ambitions being just one — than drive-by rants on cable  television. 
But 
it's part of a new strategy of more aggressively confronting  conservative 
media that Dunn had forecast this month to Time magazine. White  House 
battles with the media didn't begin today, or even with _Spiro Agnew_ 
(http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Spiro+Agnew) 's feuds with the 
"nattering 
nabobs of  negativism" in the paranoia of the Nixon White House. 
But Dunn's attack ran contrary to her boss's earlier  actions of engaging 
Fox. And over the long haul, any hint of a bunker mentality  from the White 
House is good for no one. 

Fox commentators, of course, ate the attack up as if they  had gotten 
inside the proverbial henhouse. Fox News portrays itself as the  network that 
dares ask what _CNN_ 
(http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Companies/Publishers,+Media,+Music/CNN)
  won't because it wants access or 
_MSNBC_ (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/MSNBC)  can't because it is 
so 
aligned with the  Democrats. What is better for that story line than to get 
into a food fight with  the White House? 
The episode tells us three things: 
1. The Obama White House is still in campaign mode. It only  has 
approximately 12 months and 15 days to be in governing mode before the next  
presidential election campaign starts. You can win elections by hardening your  
base 
of support by attacking the base of your opposition. But it is extremely  
difficult, if not impossible, to govern that way. Attacks on Fox are, de 
facto,  attacks on the people who watch it. Obama might need that base if he 
decides to  accept the recommendation of his top general in Afghanistan and 
pour 
tens of  thousands more American troops into that country — and his liberal 
anti-war wing  turns on him. He may need Republican support to get a health 
care bill  passed. 
2. Attacking whole segments of the population belies  Obama's promise of 
bringing people together. Obama's appearance on Fox  commentator Bill 
O'Reilly's show in September 2008 indicated a candidate's  willingness to be a 
different kind of president, to act on the stated desire of  his predecessor, 
_George W. Bush_ 
(http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Politicians,+Government+Officials,+Strategists/Executive/George+W.+Bush)
 , to be a uniter 
not a divider. Obama got  a fair shake in that interview. 
3.There is still a thing called presidential decorum.  Sending out a 
taxpayer-paid partisan to attack a network, and by extension, its  viewers, is 
not 
presidential. If you want to get in the mud with Glenn Beck, do  it on your 
own dime and time, not ours.
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/

Reply via email to