The Obama war against Fox News: Risky business?

The Obama White House is making no secret of its distaste for Fox News.

In a round of Sunday talk show appearances, the administration escalated its war against the network that likes to call itself "fair and balanced" but that happens to feature quite a few conservative voices.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said on CNN that Fox News isn't even a news organization.

And White House political guru David Axelrod, who had coffee a few weeks ago in New York with Fox News founder Roger Ailes, told ABC that Fox News is "really not news. ... Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way. We're not going to treat them that way."

But some are wondering if this is smart politics. Given that Fox News boasts a far larger audience than cable competitors CNN and MSNBC, and given that most elections are decided by independents who might occasionally watch FNC, the strategy could backfire.

“It's a very risky strategy,” perennial presidential advisor David Gergen said recently on CNN. “It's not one I would advocate.”

For its part, the administration seems content to keep the battle going, even though the wars have already claimed a few victims. Glenn Beck pounded the lectern relentlessly about green jobs czar Van Jones for signing a petition suggesting government conspiracy in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Jones resigned.

Now Beck has turned his furor on White House communications director Anita Dunn for saying that China's Mao Tse-tung was one of her favorite philosophers. Firing back, Dunn said she picked up the line from renowned Republican strategist Lee Atwater and that it was meant as irony.

"The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat -- at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing," she said. Keeping up the White House attack, Dunn also charged that Fox serves as "the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party."

Now Beck is charging that the White House attack is akin to media genocide, like going after the Jews during the Holocaust.

I dunno, don't these folks have something better to do?

-- Johanna Neuman

Click here for Twitter alerts of each Ticket item. Or follow us  @latimestot  Also on Facebook here.

Comments

[Will S]

The only people on Earth that don't know that Fox News is a branch of the Republican Party are the people that watch Fox News every day. The whole affair is moot.

[Cin]

Give me a break. Attacking new media is not what the White House should be doing, it should be creating jobs. I honestly believe they are trying to destory everything the real American stands for and I for one have had enough. If I could take by my vote I would give it to anyone but him. He has abused my trust and I want him OUT.

[miterious blank lol lo l]

Obama is a lozer who knows nothing bout this contry oh ya if ur reading this obama i bet u werent born in the usa i want to c proof and if u dont i will find some way to make get out of the office hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah oh ya did i mention every1 hates u you should stay as a person in the city with ur little girls

[Steve]

Glenn Beck for PRESIDENT in 2012!!!!

[Ken Jackson]

Nice article LA Times.

The White House attacks fail to address issues, which is commmon when someone has something to hide or has failed to address the facts themselves. I'm very unimpressed with their methods. I'm also unimpressed with name calling on both sides. Such behavior is not productive. This whole thing looks like a page out of the Nixon era. Meantime, why is the White House unwilling to appear on Fox News? Could it be fear of facing straight forward questions that are not preapproved? And since when do the three network news stations present fair and balanced news!? The White House presents as wanting only news that they want released - not new for governments, but not something we need in our country. Obama campaigned promising an open administration - when will he deliver?

[Proud American]

Obama is afraid of the truth. Fox news tells the truth. Just because practically everything Democrats and Obama do is bad for our country (just look at the mess we're in now). Fox news is trying to protect America and American values against the democrats trying to destroy our country and our values. 1168 more days to go of Obama's crap...

[Wanda Icenhower]

I believe this is called censorship. This is the United States of America. Not China, Iran or Venezula! These people in Washington better stop this kind of censorship behavior. They will be voted out. I don't care what party your from. This is unacceptable! Stand up America!

[Linda]

The Administration needs to be careful. Its antipathy toward Fox bears a striking resemblance to Nixon's paranoia about enemies in the media.

[mbsfca]

First of all things: Fox News is an entertaining opinionated group of wannabe know-it-alls that really should have their own daytime trash-talk shows. I do enjoy tuning on occasion for a quick laugh or chuckle. And I do believe the term "Fox News" is a typical oxymoron, with an emphasis on the moron part. The better term should be "Feux News." At least then they would have the right to call themselves fair and balanced. Hopefully with a straight face.

[Henry Harris]

Everyone knows that Fox News is an agent for the Republicans, who in turn are agents for the wealthy scum in this country who would let this country be destroyed to protect their bottom line. It's time this county woke up and realized that the objectives of the rich serve no one but themselves.

Yes, Obama is going against the rich and powerful, which is dangerous for obvious reasons. It's about time someone stood up to these self-serving a-holes and made a stand of all Americans, not just the powerful rich.

[mike colhoun]

come on...they are afraid of one little network "Fox" when they have all media in their back pocket. Could it be that the little fox has outsmarted the hounds (big government)!

[James Collins]

I don't think it's wise to let the White House control who is and is not considered a news organization. You're only a hop skip and a jump away from only having state run "news" organizations that only promote the party line.

[anony]

Looks like my comments disappeared!

As I said. Fox News is not about journalistic tegerity. They will say anything! Don't believe the hype.

[DL13]

Fox is the only news organization that has actively gone after the Whitehouse and Congress to hold them accountable for their actions. Any Administration has had issues and have felt uncomfortable when under media scrutiny. The actions of this one in attacking FoxNews is disgusting and brings up all the Nazi and Stalinist suppression stories told by people on the far right. The administration's tactics are childish and unprofessional.

[Mike Carlson]

Glenn Beck is nutty, if he cries one more time on TV he should be banned! ANYONE who watches Rupert Murdoch's Fox News and does not know they are slanted and right-wing neocon biased is either frighteningly naive and/or strikingly unaware.

[Walter]

The average American is not even aware of network bias. This feud may change that. Good.

[Seth]

This really doesn't seem productive at all. I mean I understand where the administration is coming from. Fox is not a news network it is a conservative opinion network that heralds itself as news. However, the administration seems to be fueling more frenzy in the far right by giving the network more coverage that is more dramatic.

[JohnyV]

Go FOX! The other so called news broadcasters report like the "EMPORIOR has NO CLOTHS"

[Rainman2]

You mean they are spending my tax dollars to curb freedom of speech? Thats un-american! I don't care if you agree or not with what they broadcast thats just wrong in so many ways. Thats just one more thing to add to my list of why this guy should not be running this country.

[k.j.]

The freedom of a news organization to report news, regardless of how slanted it may appear to some parties, is a fundemental right of a free press. The Obama administration has definitely overstepped the boundary in it's attack on Fox. It smacks of an arrogance that thinks it is so popular that it can silence it's critics. Any student of world history knows that this a dangerous path to be on.

[Eddo]

I assume by your words, "I dunno, don't these folks have something better to do?" you are speaking of the White House staff.

[Mike HUmmer]

Obama Bin Laden can't take it like a man!!! Wants to raise tax's on all of us poor and middle class!!!!! F Him!!!!

[Mark]

The childlike behavior of this administration is outrageous to say the least this is why I (come election day) will vote all the children out of office.

[fgr]

I would hate to see Bush's White House telling MSNBC what to do or not do. However, Fox has a terrible history of unbiased and unfair propaganda. And perhaps because the viewership is larger than the Cable News Networks, Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdock play to the odds for the ratings. I wonder if the viewership was a bit more "balanced", would Ailes and Murdock be more concerned about the authenticity of their reporting.
Channels like Fox need to be regulated. Either they're not considered, called, "News Channel" explicitly or they report the news as they happen without a biased and/or interpretation. Especially that skewed and slanted towards the extreme right.
Extreme Left is only a reaction to the many years of escalating Rush Limbaugh-Sean Hanity-Glenn Beck type of subversive Extreme Right.
The Nation suffers, we lose. And the world laughs at us.
We need a true, legitimate, Independent Media in this country if it is to remain (or become) a Democracy.

[Sabrina]

Shame on Glenn Beck for trivializing the Holocaust like that to suit his own selfish motives! He is proof of the saying "better to remain silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." Beck alone takes the credibilty of FOX news down into the basement.

[mike]

Ahhh .... So the obama administration welcomes all viewpoints, and all people, and wants to be bi-partisan .... As long as you agree with the dictator's regime ... Hiel Obama!

[hil]

I do not understand the comments about FOX news. The O administration is just frustrated that they cannot "control" them like all of the other stations. My gracious, that Dunn lady sure has some scary opinions about what we should be watching. Maybe she should move to China to be with her friends instead of pouting about FOX. A fair amount of Americans that are not of the Marxist mindset happen to like FOX and we GET IT. Mrs. Dunn, try to put a little petroleum on your teeth before you attempt to brainwash our young. You looked like an idiot with cotton mouth after a big fat joint toke. Wake up America!!!!

[Josh Geller]

Fox news is partisan? What a huge surprise! And CNN is not partisan? The Washington Post is not partisan?

It is or should be beneath the dignity of the President of the United States to get into a brawl with a news medium.

It is also extremely poorly advised. The Obamites would be better advised worrying about the fact that a significant fraction of the citizenry are opposed to them.

.

[Mari]

Is there nothing else that the administration can spend time on, if they don't know maybe we can give them some ideas, Economy, Iraq/Afghanistan War,
or even I know this is stretching it, maybe Health Care. Rather than go after Fox
News and give them free publicity and viewers, maybe they should spend their effort on something that they were voted to do. No where on the ballot and election were going after a News Channel part of their fundraising, maybe I missed that email. Stop wasting time and effort on something useless, get to work, what grade are you in?

[Diana]

Obama and his minons are just mad, because FOX doesnt kiss their butts like the other news channels, and actually asks Obama hard questions.

[RDavid]

If you have a brain and can think on your own, The Barry O Club wants to silence you and or your source of information. So why else would they bash FNC? Because they are scared. Rahm, Axelrod, Chuckles in the press room and the good ole guy at the top, Barry O himself, just cannot stand the fact that anyone in the whole country disagrees with him. So much so, he's betting on the next election. So lets show him. No votes for any dem, no matter how they vote, which is in lock step anyway.

Lets sink the Barry O Club!

[Teresa Fields]

I am glad to hear that the white house is finally standing up to the smear that Fox "News" puts out. It is clear that Fox has a clear political agenda and it is not acting as a news orginization. It is a political party front.

[Jason]

I disagree completely that this is a risky political stance. First, the target audience for Faux News does not agree with President Obama's politics, therefore anything he would say in an interview on that channel would not be received in the same way that it would on a real news station. Faux News has never been "fair and balanced." The last "liberal" commentator left with Alan Colmes. Faux News is an entertainment network, just like Comedy Central, albeit slightly less amusing. I witnessed some "protestors" outside NBC Studios in Burbank who were saying that NBC has "No Balaced Coverage." Last time I checked the host of MSNBC's morning show "Morning Joe" was a Republican. Dost thou protest too much?

[EricTN]

Nobody seems to get that it's not that FNC "happens to feature quite a few conservative voices". Yeeeesh. That is *not* the issue. The issue is that outside of their opinion and editorial shows and commentators, FNC is representing its NEWS REPORTING as being straight news, like ABC News is straight news. FNC's news reporting is ideologically-driven and has an agenda. And that's fine. But be HONEST about it. Don't say it is what is is not. Fox New's competitors are amazingly relunctant to call Fox out for the simple reason that they're thinking... wait a minute, would we be next? No you won't - as long as you do what has been common for the last 4 or more decades; that you carefully distinguish between your editorial side and your straight news side. Quit being COWARDS.

[Richard Hed]

From 2006: Treason charge hurled at paper; Bush accuses The New York Times of aiding the enemy
From 2002: Leading hawks in Washington who back a military attack on Iraq have turned their guns on the New York Times, charging that America's most influential newspaper is deliberately distorting its news coverage to undermine the case for war.
July 2006: "Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Treasury Secretary John Snow and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have all singled out the New York Times, in particular, publicly denouncing the newspaper and accusing it of jeopardizing US security. Prominent Republicans in Congress have waded in, some going so far as to accuse the newspaper of treason and demanding criminal sanctions."

Whose Ox is gored? It appears every administration has a whack at the press it doesn't like. Arguably the 2002 attack on the Times led to some changes in editorial content that may have contributed later to the Times own mea culpas for not looking hard enough at the evidence in the run up to the war.

[Larry]

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

Theodore Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918.

[ronnie]

Sounds like the Dems are scared! Dem's and the President have enough of worries-fox should be the least of the problems!!

[Karen Holmes]

I have been watching the evolving battle between the Democrats and Republicans for several years, and am very concerned. There is a great potential for disaster here as this escalates because this is evolving as a genocide, and the participants are one step away from people dying.

As the head of a non-profit organization whose goal is world peace, I have studied genocides, and have been the victim of one. You cannot defend yourself from prejudice and ulterior motives.

Genocides evolve along a certain pattern, and start when someone puts another on a pedestal, and compares everyone else to their hero. The war in Iraq is actually a genocide, and will eventually affect every person on the planet in some way. George Bush put his father on a pedestal, and compared Saddam Hussein to him. That allowed him to judge Saddam Hussein with a sense of "black and white."

With Fox News, George Bush is the one they put on the pedestal, and they are comparing Obama to him.

Genocides are not just found in Africa, with people being killed with machetes. Genocides occur every day. Consider character defamation to be a genocide. They continue to draw in people until someone says, "Stop." The final stage of a genocide is that the perpetrators believe they have been victimized, and therefore have the right to continue to tear their "victims" apart.

The Conservatives consider the Liberals to be soft on terrorism, and are horrified that President Obama is opening the door to other nations to make the United States vulnerable. They have insulated and isolated themselves from the rest of the world. They believed there were weapons of mass destruction, and that George Bush was perfectly honest with people. They believe it because all they watch is Fox News, and that is a "single point of light" for them, which means everything outside of the light is darkness, and creates shadows.

The Democrats function as if they are now the ones in power, and just as it has always been, their perspective is the one that will be followed because the majority of people voted for them. They see the Republican anger at them as campaign rhetoric that has gone a bit overboard.

President Obama cannot defend himself from prejudice and ulterior motives. This puts President Obama into a dilemma. One choice is to stand in protest, but if he does that, he will be judged as abusing his power. He won't be listened to unless he can come up with a plan that allows everyone to function on a higher level. On the other side, to allow himself to be ripped apart allows Fox News to function with impunity. The middle ground is to stand on the principles of inalienable rights, that character defamation and false accusations are criminal offenses, and allow other people to stand and defend him.

My webpage has three Conflict Resolution brochures that delineate the stages genocides go through. You can find them at www.ontherainbowpeacestore.com/training.htm.

[somesense]

I believe it is smart and necessary to counter-attack or to put it mildly “correct” misinformation or information with a slanted spin. To stay aloof and maintain a “royal” posture does not hack it if your opponent is staging a down and low street fight day after day. Those critics are wrong to say it is better to keep silent and don’t fight back. I am suprised that they would underestimate the power of unrelenting slogans from your opponents. Maybe I am cynical, but I believe media can turn black to white and white to black if they hammer it in long enough. Carl Rove knows it. Go ask him.

Somebody from the administration needs to balance out the nasty messages from anybody that intends only to serve their own interests and not the interests of the whole country. Soldier on.

[Chuck Cardiff]

Bias in the news media is endemic, and it always has been. It's completely hypocritical for Obama to complain of Fox's anti-Obama bias unless he also complains of pro-Obama bias in the New York Times and National Public Radio. But of course he won't do that, and thus we can safely conclude that he is not complaining of bias at all, just about being criticized. Poor baby Obama-wama.

[db]

Beck is an idiot, comparing how Fox News is treated to the plight of Jews during the Holocaust. That is the height of hubris. If Beck is Jewish, he should be ashamed. If he's not, then even more so for such an asinine remark!

Wah! The administration won't talk to FNS. Wah! The administration can pick and choose who they want to interview with. The administration owes FNS nothing. Whiners like Beck, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh should grow a pair and deal. It's not as though the lack of an administration appearance on their network somehow deprives them of something to rant about.

Moderates and Independents have nothing to fear from the freeze-out of FNS. They will simply get their news elsewhere. For those die-hards who have forgotten that the truth exists when the news outlets are taken in their aggregate, and that truth is formed when you think for yourself (as opposed to having pundits tell you what to think, regardless of source), they're not interested in what the administration has to say, anyway! SO NO BIG LOSS TO THEM!

FNS does not deserve any consideration.

[unomas]

I've never watch Fox News. The volume on that network always sounds loud.

[Jacob Pritchett]

And can't we all agree that FOX News has a much brighter future than... say, the LA Times?

[Donna Trivone]

I wonder why the White House is so afraid of FREE SPEECH AND FOX NEWS

[Mark VanGelder]

There is no risk for Obama by exposing FOX News for the biased opinion channel that it is. The majority of us already know this, and the majority of Americans support our president. Enought said.

[JSKY]

Think Fox is just trivial matter? Amendment one is now being worked on. You folks will probably think this is just fine. Oh, just a little here and a little there - just like always.

See Yuri Bezmenov youtube - he is predicting the outcome here as well as there...

[Frank Schab]

Regardless of individual political persuasion, I think most people would agree that the boundary between news and entertainment has been growing increasingly blurred across all media. The notion of an objective, unbiased news source should be treated as an ideal rarely, if ever, achieved. Rather, in this age of media proliferation, it's more about listening to multiple points of view/perspectives and forming one's own opinion rather than attempting to seek out the least biased source and sticking to it.

[Wayne P]

Democracy requires opposition in order to exist. The Whitehouse going after Fox is ridiculous. No matter how you view Fox News, it is a media outlet that provides news and opinion, just as many other media outlets do. The Whitehouse doesn't like the opinion coming from Fox, so it tries to paint the entire outlet the same color - which is really immaterial.

The fact is, you can turn to any 24 hour news station and find subtle and not so subtle slant and spin in the news stories going both left and right. This is healthy and people have the freedom to choose who they get their information from. To oppose this is undemocratic and verges on fascism.

[V. Whittier]

I believe that the best articulation of alternate points of view is at the extremes. However, the answer is usually in the middle.

The advantage of cable channels in general is that they can "narrowcast" to better serve niche interests.

When a news organization obviously slants more one way than the other, it is a stand that it takes that has consequences in terms of audience.

I believe that Fox is more popular than MSNBC because there IS a tendency for liberal bias in the overall media. MSNBC may be more obviously slanted to the left than other news outlets, but it isn't really offering something that a large population believes is lacking.

Absolutely, the audience of Fox should be enough to tell the President that he should tread carefully.

In any case, I value the variety of opinions. I think that our variety of choices today are a double edged sword. We can choose to tune into a wider variety of voices or to tune out all that don't agree with our own.

The fact is that Obama's attacks on Fox won't change the minds of those who want to tune him out. It does further my overall reservations about him.

Clearly a leader... great charisma.... extremely intelligent... but I am not so sure about judgement.

[Phil Lammi]

Remember, when the Administration gives so much attention to the opposition, it keeps the dialog open. Censorship always implies the censor considers the audience of the person or organization it is attempting to squelch, is not intelligent enough to consider opposing sides of a question and come to a rational conclusion. In short, censors think you are stupid. Guess what Emanuel and Axelrod, we are not. That fact should and does terrify you.