One might normally think that a Democratic president, such as Barack Obama, would find that his main opposition is the Republican Party, including such Republican officeholders as Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, John McCain, Michael Steele, or maybe a prominent former office-holder, such as Newt Gingrich.
Last week Time magazine's Michael Scherer ran a forward-looking piece in which he noted that the White House was moving into direct press-criticism mode, as top communications officials called out specific stories that they didn't like.
Scherer's story led Kirsten Powers, on "Fox News Watch," which aired Saturday, to label the White House as a bunch of "crybabies," echoing Chris Wallace. Also on Fox News Watch," Jim Pinkerton quipped that the White House was "cutting out the middleman" in the media; that is, top White House aides were getting directly into the game of creating their own content, putting on their own little shows on the White House website, also available on YouTube. That's propaganda, of course, but it's what the White House is doing. And interestingly, even media types who would normally object to such "disintermediation" don't seem to mind--such is the power of ideology to blind people, even to their own self-interest.
But by Sunday, it had become obvious that the White House wants, most of all, to pound Fox News into submission. I doubt that will happen, but it's going to be a rumble.
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, perhaps also mad that she isn't getting as much on-air time as Robert Gibbs, lashed into Fox News on CNN's "Reliable Sources," as picked up by Sam Stein in The Huffington Post. Ms. Dunn said:
"The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it is not ideological... what I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party."
Huffpo then quoted a Fox senior VP, Michael Clemente, responding:
An increasing number of viewers are relying on FOX News for both news and opinion. And the average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A section of the newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents. So, with all due respect to anyone who still might be confused about the difference between news reporting and vibrant opinion, my suggestion would be to talk about the stories and the facts rather than attack the messenger...which over time, has never worked.
And now that great Cable Gamer, Brian Stelter of the New York Times,
is on the story this morning, headlined, "Fox's Volley With Obama Intensifying." As Brian put it in his lede:
Attacking the news media is a time-honored White House tactic but to an unusual degree, the Obama administration has narrowed its sights to one specific organization, the Fox News Channel, calling it, in essence, part of the political opposition.
Stelter quoted more from Clemente, who seems to have been assigned the point job in responding to Dunn:
“Instead of governing, the White House continues to be in campaign mode, and Fox News is the target of their attack mentality,” Michael Clemente, the channel’s senior vice president for news, said in a statement on Sunday. “Perhaps the energy would be better spent on the critical issues that voters are worried about.
But Stelter, of course, has sources all through Fox News:
” Fox’s senior vice president for programming, Bill Shine, says of the criticism from the White House, “Every time they do it, our ratings go up.” Mr. Obama’s first year is on track to be the Fox News Channel’s highest rated.
And Stelter also got this background gem:
One Fox executive said that the jabs by the White House could solidify the network’s audience base and recalled that Mr. Ailes had remarked internally: “Don’t pick a fight with people who like to fight.” The executive asked not to be named while discussing internal conversations.
So as my illustration above suggests, if present trends continue, it will be Obama vs. Fox in 2012.
