Fox News is not fair and balanced. Let us begin from a point of agreement. We all know what it is, and we most certainly know what it isn't.
Whatever role Fox has in the VRWC (main player), we cannot ignore a basic fact. People watch Fox. More importantly, voters watch Fox. Not just rapid, right-wing, racist, sexist, homophobic, myopic trolls, but, you know, some normal people, too. Barack was talking to them.
Consider this: Fox has been on a relentless quest to spread lies, smears, mis/disinformation about Obama for months. In spite of that, many of its viewers tuned in to watch an interview. Think about that. After months of Hannity's wall-to-wall Jeremiah Wright coverage, Fox & Flag Pins, and B. Hussein Osama bin Laden, many, many Fox viewers were still willing to tune in and listen to what Barack Obama had to say.
So, with that opportunity to introduce himself to whatever rational folks are watching, he's supposed to go all ghetto/postal on Chris Wallace? I don't think so.
Has the multi-headed hydra of FoxNews/Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter et al so twisted our concept of political engagement that we no longer recognize it? We know Fox doesn't know what meaningful discourse is, but have we also forgotten?
Taking something or someone on does not mean screaming in their face, insulting them or interrupting them. Nor does challenging them require any of this type of behavior. What it does mean is that you answer false charges with truth. You undermine generalizations with specifics. You underscore truths with calm, reasoned discussion. Should we answer taunts with more taunts?
"Yo Chris, yo moms studied in a madrassa!"
Talking to Fox gave many viewers (who are also voters, remember?) a chance to get actual legitimate information about Barack Obama from the source. God knows when they'll get another, hopefully unfiltered, opportunity to do that.
Now, I certainly do not mean in any way to equate Fox with NBC/CBS/MSNBC/CNN (ABC is still on my list). But, we all know that all of these real news outlets have spread more than their fair share of slanted coverage, misinformation and nontroversies (love that term, read it on Politico.com) in the course of their campaign hoverage. Clearly, they are nowhere near Fox's level of gutter journalism, but let's not lose perspective. If the bar is that politicians we support can only deal with-dare I say-fair, balanced media outlets, then the pickings are slim.
One thirty minute sit-down with a Fox personality (not to be confused with a journalist) is not partnering with Drudge. It is not pandering to Scaife. It is not filming a Fox promo. It is not participating in a Fox-sponsored debate.
Kos says:
His appearance essentially sends the message that Obama is susceptible to caving to right-wing bullying taunts and threats.
It took them 772 days to get him to 'cave'. It hardly establishes a template for effective taunting.
Kos says:
It made Obama look weak, and he was.
I just fundamentally disagree. Obama answered questions about Wright, flag pins adeptly and with an ease that has been sorely lacking in other venues. He made them seem like nonissues. Some viewers had to be rethinking them after seeing that.
Kos says:
It gave Fox a propaganda victory, allowing it to crow that: [Obama] very much wants to get away from any sense that he's a creature or a captive of the left.
...but Republicans don't generally piss on their base as they make that transition. Our side makes a ritual out of it. That's not how long-term movements are built.
I keep hearing all of this talk about Obama abandoning the netroots, blowing off his activist base. I'm still waiting to see actual evidence of this. Quotes? Links?
Kos says:
It exposed his campaign as a bunch of liars.
Wow, now there's an overreaction if I've ever seen one.
Kos says:
I know some people are upset that Obama "threw Daily Kos under the bus", or other such nonsense. He didn't.
Thanks for clarifying that. Let's hope that it lays that crap to rest.
Kos says:
Obama wants to keep defending the Democrats who allowed these travesties to happen. Obama may feel righteous and proud of that, but I'd argue those Roberts-supporting Democrats deserve nothing but scorn. Hillary Clinton, for all her flaws, has never attempted to defend those Democratic votes for Roberts. They are indefensible.
I totally agree.
Here's to hoping we can maintain perspective as we continue the loooooooooong slog to the White House.