Many a time, the firewall between the White House and the media has failed to remain intact, and 2009 is certainly no exception. Earlier this month, Anita Dunn, communications director for the Obama administration, made an appearance on television decrying the propaganda spewed by Fox News personalities, like the blubbering Glenn Beck or Bush sycophant Sean Hannity.
This isn’t the first time the White House has attacked the media. Former Republican president George W. Bush fought mercilessly to suppress negative media coverage, and journalists who dared to voice their criticism were dealt some heavy blows, including illegal surveillance of telephone conversations and threats of criminal prosecution. Perhaps the most well-known and well-documented attacks against freedom of the press came during the Nixon presidency. Espionage, tax auditing, intimidation, and an “enemies list” were all part of a grand scheme to obstruct honest and objective reporting.
The Obama administration has continued to single out Fox for its conservative bias and alarmist claims against socialism. While many reporters and pundits disagree with the White House’s decision to take the organization to task, this type of public condemnation has long been overdue. The administration is not employing the same sinister, Nixon-style tactics to suppress negative coverage, but rather is standing up for journalistic standards.
Granted, the triumvirate of Beck, Hannity, and O’Reilly—the leading opinion makers of the organization—have the right to voice their outrageous opinions. However, the “straight news” portion of Fox’s programming must be held accountable, because it is not as fair and balanced as they claim. Daytime anchors consistently make political statements fuelled by their ideological slant, and interview conservative guests without a moderate or progressive guest to balance the discussion. The network has purged liberal, or at the very least moderate, voices from airtime. Fox has also featured mind-numbing coverage of the Tea Parties—a series of rallies protesting health care reform, stimulus spending, and the legitimacy of Obama’s election—and one producer was caught on video rallying the crowds. It is clear that this “news” organization is not operating like a legitimate media outlet.
The purpose of Fox News is to advance a political agenda, and as Bill Shine, Vice-President of Fox News, willingly admitted, the organization is positioned as “the voice of the opposition.” How’s that for fair and balanced?
It is certainly the president’s prerogative to fight against the notion that Fox News is an objective, non-partisan member of the news industry. Those who suggest that Obama’s criticism of the media heavyweight is a distraction from other pressing issues ought to remind the heads of Fox News what exactly the issues are: health care reform, corporate welfare, and the military escalation in Afghanistan. The organization has never been highly regarded for its investigative journalism, and frankly, I’d fathom that hardly anyone there has the intellectual curiosity to discuss and dissect the pressing issues at hand.
One can certainly give rational and legitimate criticisms about the president’s policies—and there are plenty—by using empirical evidence and sound judgment. But Fox’s idea of news content consists of scare tactics, Republican talking points, and attention to the most inane details. In order to have any constructive dialogue, the mainstream bystanders and passive supporters of Fox need to quit giving the big news bully a free pass.
