Fox News is not just biased. It is a political mobilization machine, shaping the political landscape.
President Obama offered a critique of Fox News in an interview published in an issue of Rolling Stone. This absolutely shocked and appalled Fox shock jocks Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity the evening of Obama’s speech at the University of Wisconsin in Madison on Tuesday. They were shocked by any suggestion that they were anything but “fair and balanced,” providing the alternative to the kowtowing liberals of the mainstream media. They were appalled by Obama’s criticism. (link)
Their response is cynical. They pretend to be what they are not, news commentators on a news network. Obama’s critique on the other hand is on firmer ground, even if it is not clear that it was wise. Isn’t it below the President’s dignity to engage in polemics with partisan press criticism? Doesn’t it enlarge them and belittle him? These are the questions of the talking heads on cable and on the Sunday morning shows.
But actually in the interview Obama was quite careful, offering a measured serious answer to a provocative question:
Rolling Stone: “What do you think of Fox News? Do you think it’s a good institution for America and for democracy?”
President Obama: “[Laughs] Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.”
Obama placed Fox in a tradition of opinionated American journalism, and noted he disagreed with the Fox opinions and doesn’t think they are good for America. While I don’t see how a reasonable person, either pro or anti-Obama, can find fault with his response, I also don’t think that Obama went far enough. Serious media innovation is occurring at Fox, with potentially deep political effects. It is probably the reason why Obama feels compelled to criticize it from time to time.
Fox News is a truly innovative media form, particularly for television. It purports to present news, but actually it is in the business of political mobilization.
In the case of the Tea Party protests, this is most clearly the case. Glenn Beck announces a mass demonstration, the 9/12 rally. On the Fox News programs and discussion shows, the developments leading up to the demonstration are reported, and their significance is discussed. Together with Beck’s agitation for the event, these reports and discussions bring the planned event to the attention of a large audience. Even if the event was initially the result of grassroots organization, as were the Tea Party Protests called for “tax day,” April 15, 2009, the attention of the public to the event now goes well beyond its original planners and their capacity to mobilize the population.
The French media theorist and sociologist, and my friend, Daniel Dayan, who I hope will join us in a future post, highlights the importance of this showing in his work on “monstration. ” In his research he is particularly interested in how the experience and expressions of a particular social circle moves beyond a delimited public, and is brought to the attention of a broader public. This act is of primary political significance in media politics, something Fox has done very well, helping the previously marginal to become part of the mainstream.
Then the event happens. Fox is there giving it full coverage. It is the major event of the day, the story that is given wall to wall coverage, while the other news sources tend to report it as one story among many. The fact that only Fox “properly” reports on the event is said to reveal the bias of the “lame stream media,” to use the language of the American media critic and Fox commentator, Sarah Palin. The format applies to major happenings, but also to the trivial, from the Islamic bias of textbooks in Texas, to the booing of Palin’s daughter Bristol on “Dancing with the Stars.”
Fox is not just biased as it reports the news. It produces the news from beginning to end. Its competitors in broadcast and cable journalism may lean left, MSNBC, or center, CNN, but they are not in the news making business in the same sense as Fox, and to a greater extent, its parent company, News Corporation.
To be sure, this form of media organization makes money. Murdock’s number one concern may be to be successful, as President Obama maintained in Rolling Stone, but it is notable that the success is political as well as monetary. Rupert Murdock and News Corp makes money, while America is given a strong coordinated push to the right.
Well, you know I agree that Obama can afford to be more fierce — he can spear the right, when/if he chooses— because Fox will say about him whatever they want to say, for the reasons you mention. They all, more or less, push the agenda of the right. I have only recently started watching Republican news, and I mean that as I wrote it, because I think Obama is pushing his Jobs Act hard and he is doing it relentlessly and with political acumen and charm and I am curious what they say about it, how they say it and if I can observe anything no one else has— to be determined. But back to Fox and what Fox has done (in my opinion) is capture and articulate a certain strain of American populism and it has done so from all angles, from Beck’s “passion” to O’Reilly’ s “hard questions and facts” to every outdated no-neck moronic-ness behind every Philadelphian WASP in the Social Register that is Hannity.
What you quote is very Obama— it is measured and smart. It does not matter what he says or what he does— if he goes on the attack or answers questions with reason (maybe not deserved) and betrays how he really feels and what he sees and knows with his laugh, that you have in quotations— because in watching Obama speak, again trying to see what is interesting, consistent, changing, etc— I have noticed that he speaks truth in a way that is subtle and at the same time that he speaks the truth, he usually laughs— his face lights up but never breaks into real laughter— it is quick and it says it all.
Just go back to the speech he gave at the Dem convention for Kerry— when he talks about a real democracy wherein every vote counts, he qualifies it by saying something like “most of the time” —and one big grin, a little laugh and a knowing look around the room.
The long/short of it is— I hope he keeps going the way he is going because he will gather support if he does and he may get a chance to do a lot more in his second term. I slide him the benefit of the doubt — he used the wrong tactic for nearly a year but, as you noted, that tactic was always in his playbook, or, less cynically, his deeply held belief that we are really purple; we are united. I give him, right now, tremendous credit for learning quickly and going aggressive— a year is nothing, if you think about it, to let go of a long-held conviction.