Home > Alex Massie

Monday 21 May 2012

The Fox News Effect

Monday, 11th January 2010

According to James Carville there'd be 67 Democratic Senators if it weren't for those ghastly chaps at Fox News. As with everything Carville says this must be taken with a pinch of salt. Nevetheless one need not look too hard to discover evidence of the impact Fox has had on American journalism* in precincts far from and not naturally disposed to take their orders from Roger Ailes' command-bunker. Why, the very same edition of the New York Times contains an excellent example of how Fox's "framing" of an issue has leached into the mainstream. In the paper's Week in Review section Helene Cooper "examines" the burning issue of whether Barack Obama is a wimp or a warrior...

The answer is, of course, that like all Democrats Obama is a wimp. Or, if he's not actually a wimp he is perceived as such. Now, sure, perception matters enormously in politics but perception is at least partly controlled or influenced by the press. True, Cooper's piece has the requisite paragraph that undermines most of the premises upon which her piece is based:

So soon? Here is a president who just ramped up the war in Afghanistan, sending an additional 30,000 American troops. He has stepped up drone strikes by unmanned Predators in Pakistan and provided intelligence and firepower for two airstrikes against al-Qaeda in Yemen that killed more than 60 militants. He has resisted the temptation to sign a new nuclear arms agreement with Russia that might not provide American inspectors with the level of verification detail that they want. He is moving toward the wide use of full body scans in American airports. On Thursday, in an oblique nod to the Cheney criticism, he even used the phrase “we are at war,” in describing the fight against Al Qaeda.

But the overall impact of the piece is to ay that unless the President is seen doing something "tough" then none of this matters or counts or is real. To say that this is nuts is to be far too kind.

So how can Obama show that he's a cowboy President too? Apparently by stepping up pressure on Iran (even though I think few people really believe increased sanctions will have much effect) which, in the longer-term, clearly means being open to military action (something Obama has, incidentally, never ruled out because on this, as so much else, Obama's foreign policy views are actually pretty conventional. The differences concern means, not ends.) Well, yes, I dare say that would be "tough" and to hell with whether it would be wise.

And there's this:

Then there’s terrorism. Mr. Obama will also have to demonstrate some tangible action there, the experts say, to dispel the notion put forward by the Republicans that his plans to shut down the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, makes Americans less safe. The Christmas Day attempted plane attack over Detroit failed in many ways, but it succeeded in doing one thing: reintroducing the issue of terrorism into the American psyche. Now, Mr. Obama is under pressure to show that he considers fighting terrorism to be a priority.

[...] For Mr. Obama, that may also mean talking tough more often, Mr. Rothkopf said. “If you’re going to be president of the United States in the early part of the 21st century, you’re going to have to look like you’re tough on terror.”

Right. Because this administration doesn't give a hoot about terrorism? Please. Note too the casual acceptance (hidden behind the words "the experts say") that closing - or rather, relocating - Guantanamo might imperil American security. How this could be the case I don't know, largely because it's exceedingly difficult to see how it can be true. But never mind.

Equally irrelevent, it seems, are all the occasions on which Obama has made it clear that al-Qaeda remains a major danger that must be fought. This too must be ignored because, obviously, it would be crazy for the "paper of record" to publish a piece that pointed out what is being done when it's much easier to carry a piece more-or-less dictated by Fox News talking points arguing that, evidence or reality be damned, the President is wimpier-than-wimpish and needs to "seem" tougher-than-tough.

*See Michael Wolff, mind you, for more on some interesting differences between Ailes and Rupert.

Filed under: Iran (144 more articles) , Newspapers (382 more articles) , Obama (365 more articles) , Television (181 more articles) , Terrorism (298 more articles) , Washington (169 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (9)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

ndm

January 11th, 2010 5:04pm Report this comment

And there I thought it was the Republicans who were weak on terrorism and didn't care about terrorists. President George W. Bush even said of the instigator of the greatest terrorist attack on the United States:

-- I don’t know where he is. Nor — you know, I just don’t spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I....I truly am not that concerned about him.

Conservative Cabbie

January 11th, 2010 5:38pm Report this comment

"Right. Because this administration doesn't give a hoot about terrorism? Please."

Alex, please get it right. Its "man-caused disasters" not terrorism. And if that doesn't tell you how the current administration contemplates terrorism, I don't know what will.

Conservative Cabbie

January 11th, 2010 5:41pm Report this comment

ndm

Another quote:

""My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him. But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives, then we will meet our goal of protecting America."

-Barack Obama

So I'm curious as to how this is different. Particularly when Obama also said during the campaign (another of his expired promises):

"We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda."

Alex Massie

January 11th, 2010 5:58pm Report this comment

ConCabbie: I agree that the "man-caused" stuff was an asinine comment. But look at the national security team: Clinton, Gates, Jones, Holbrooke, Biden etc etc. None of these people are from the liberal-left wing of the Democratic party. One need not agree with everything they do or say to appreciate that they probably take terrorism pretty seriously and no less seriously than an administration led by John McCain would have.

Conservative Cabbie

January 11th, 2010 6:38pm Report this comment

Alex

Actually I tend to agree with you, it's on national security that the right have been able to find some common ground with Obama.

My concern with the way the left perceive terrorism (Obama included) is that they see terrorists as people that can be dealt with, or that by modifying America's own behaviour, that somehow that will placate the Islamic extremists. I'm afraid I don't see it that way. After the attempted bombing, a writer on a left wing British blog referred to the attack as a "protest". That's the language of the liberal left which helps demonstrate their inability to really understand the issue.

Of course, as your excellent Peter King article notes, sometimes the right aren't too good at understanding terrorism either.

Beefeater

January 11th, 2010 6:58pm Report this comment

"Wimp or Warrior?", is not bad question for political journalists to pose. It is, as you suggest, simply a proxy for "Democrat or Republican?" or "Talks like a Democrat, walks like a Republican?" or, "Are the President's actual policies in line with his stated principles?" In fact this question in its various forms is the essential discussion point for all political journalists looking at how a president, elected in a two-party system, actually governs. It is not a talking point "framed by Fox". Fox's talking points are no cheaper than any other news medium's, including the NYT.
As for the answer as to whether Obama's actions - sending more troops to Afghanistan, but with a timetable for them to return, saying we are at war with Al Qaeda, as if it were the whole and not just a part of the enemy - are those of a wimp acting like a warrior, or a wimp talking like a warrior,that depends on whether the journalist wrestling with this question wants him to be a wimp, a warrior, or has profoundly noted that walking one way and talking another way is what a president (losing popularity in the polls) will do to appeal to both wimps and warriors. The NYT usually takes the profound option, which can lead to statements that as wimpy warrior, or warlike-wimp Obama is post-partisan. This matches other profundities: that he is post-national, or post-racial. Limping worriers plump for this Hegelian synthesis.

"Obama, Solomon or oxymoron?" The same wimp/warrior question framed by an intellectual for, let's say, the journal Juris/Diction.