Who’s behind the White House war on Fox News?
President Obama with Anita Dunn, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, and Robert Gibbs (via White House Flickr stream)
My syndicated column today follows up on yesterday’s Fox News Derangement Syndrome post. Who has Obama stocked his communications shop with, you ask? Beltway flacks for corruptocrats. Meet some of the key people behind the White House war on Fox News.
Birds of a feather…
****
Who’s behind the White House war on Fox News?
by Michelle Makin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009
White House interim communications director Anita Dunn assumed the role of lead Fox News Channel-basher this weekend. The attack was a dud. The left-leaning Nation magazine ridiculed President Obama’s press shop for turning him into the “whiner-in-chief.” AOL media columnist Jeff Bercovici called the war on Fox a “loser’s strategy” that “signals weakness.” And that’s the friendly fire.
Dunn found refuge in rival CNN’s green zone, where she blasted Fox News as a “research arm of the Republican Party.” Unhappy with headline-generating Fox News hosts who have wrested control of the news cycle from Team Obama, Dunn complained about “opinion journalism masquerading as news.”
Well, that is certainly an apt description of an Obama-sympathizing “news” segment on Wolf Blizter’s CNN Politics show, which purported to “fact check” a Saturday Night Live skit mocking the president’s lack of accomplishments. Yes, the “real” news fact-checked the fake news to cover for Obama’s deficiencies. Zero complaints from the White House communications office about that. Or about authentic CNN journalist Anderson Cooper using his prime-time show to make vulgar sexual jokes about Tea Party activists. Or about the joint White House-ABC News health care reform infomercial that aired earlier this summer.
Some “opinion journalism” is more equal than others.
Debates about the blurred lines between opinion and journalism are all well and good. But don’t the talking points-crafters in the Oval Office have something better to do than carp about the talking points they don’t like hearing on the one cable network that hasn’t been completely overrun by Obama sycophants? (Full disclosure: I’ve been a Fox News contributor since 2001.)
Where are the seasoned press gurus to help Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama appear more presidential and less petty and thuggish?
The corruptocrat affiliations of Obama’s communications team are illuminating. His press shop can’t rise above the fray because they’ve been entrenched in the Beltway fray for years. They can’t help themselves.
Democratic media consultant Dunn’s claim to fame is her decade-long service as chief strategist for disgraced Democrat and former Senate Majority Leader-turned-health care lobbyist Tom Daschle. She was in the thick of his failed re-election campaign as Daschle asserted a bogus property-tax homestead exemption claim on his $1.9 million D.C. mansion – which he listed as his primary residence despite voting in South Dakota and claiming it as his primary residence in order to run for re-election. And Dunn was with Daschle during the years he failed to pay gobs of taxes on a luxury car and driver provided to him by crony donor Leo Hindery, Jr.
After working as communications manger for Obama’s political action committee and then as senior adviser to his 2008 presidential campaign, Dunn “trained” White House press secretary and anti-Fox sniper Robert Gibbs. Deputy communications director Dan Pfeiffer is another young protégé of Dunn’s who worked with her on the disastrous 2004 Daschle re-election campaign.
(Another Daschle connection: Obama transition adviser John Podesta, who served as Daschle’s counselor and has helped staff the administration with many alumni of his left-wing think tank, the Center for American Progress. One CAP fellow, Hugo Chavez-admiring radical Mark Lloyd, has attacked conservative talk radio – second home of several Fox News hosts — and is now the FCC’s “Diversity Czar.”)
Dunn is married to Robert Bauer, a Washington, D.C. corporate lawyer who served as general counsel for Obama for America. It was Bauer who lobbied the Justice Department unsuccessfully last fall to pursue a criminal probe of American Issues Project (AIP), an independent group that sought to run an ad spotlighting Obama’s ties to Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.
It was Bauer who attempted to sic the DOJ on GOP donor Harold Simmons and sought his prosecution for funding the ad. It was Bauer who tried to bully television stations across the country to compel them to pull the spot. All on Barack Obama’s behalf.
While conservatives revel in the Left’s hysteria over Fox News Channel’s dominance, more of Obama’s friends hope he’ll wipe his nose and man up. Fat chance. As long as he’s surrounded by career flacks who demonize dissent to distract from the Beltway stench, the White House will remain an all-whine zone.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Snooper Report
- Sister Toldjah
- Jeremiah Films
- PianoMan
- Michelle Malkin » Obama’s FCC, liberal churches, and the “media justice” mob
- Buy ativan.
- Buy alprazolam.
- Obama and the Company He Keeps « The Foxhole
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Corruption, Media Bias
Conservatives4Palin
» Hey Crooks and Liars, It Appears that Josef Jarod Lied to You
Gates of Vienna
» How London Became a Terrorist HotbedDoug Ross @ Journal
» Democrats shocked -- SHOCKED -- that Republicans won't eat the juicy, tender crap sandwich they cooked up all on their ownGreen Room
» Miss Me Yet? Bush Billboard Mystery SolvedMudville Gazette
» New Standards in JournalismRedstate
» Michael Steele Plays the Race CardJustOneMinute
» He Played It Left Hand, But Took It Too Far
By this definition, aren’t you whining about Fox?
Wrong. The issue is not that the president does not go on Fox, but that his administration attacks when Fox questions what the POTUS is doing. I could care less if BHO goes on Fox, could care less, but it shows how little substance he has because the networks he does go on treats him ever so kindly. And this is just because of the opinion shows? The POTUS has no spine, some of you in here can spin it, but the majority of us here are immune to the dizziness now. I will not hail the boy king.
Ummmm, OK.
What were the results of the Chrysler bailout, and dealing with the Savings and Loan debacle?
The results were pretty good. Chrysler paid back the Treasury and the assets of the S and L were disposed of for minimal loses without dragging down the rest of the economy. Decent results and it makes the outcome of our current situation somewhat more helpful.
With regard to precedent, and in particular the Dredd Scott decision, I have no problem with overturning past laws (precedents), as long as, it is consistent.
If a challenge is made because something is not constitutional, then anything that is not constitutional should also be challenged.
When a mistake is about to be made, we should stop. And, when a mistake has existed, it should also be corrected. The reason for stopping the mistake is also reason enough to correct the old mistake. Do you agree?
Interesting metaphor. Though when I see the Oval Office, I invision cigars and blue dresses; thanks to intern chaser Clinton.
And, when I think of the Oval Office, I remember George Bush – always with a suit and tie. He and Laura brought dignity back to the White House.
Fox News just said something about a latin/hispanic party held last night and how ‘Bambi danced and enjoyed the evening. This while he’s made no decision on Afghanistan. The O thinks he’s a rock star. G-d help us.
Ummmm, OK.
Yes, stating facts is not whinning. Editorializing and speculating as to the reason why is whinning.
I am reluctant to place tyrants and a cable channel in ther same category. I have even a greater reluctance to speculate that anyone would treat the two the same. Who would treat the Queen of England the same way they treat a street walker? They aren’t in the same category.
.
The point is as you have cut and pasted it, but failed to comprehend it.
Qouting myself -
“The issue is, why he chooses not to appear on Fox for direct on on ones.”
Do you agree, that is the issue?
That the White house is having a hissy fit, and the result is Pres Obama not appearing for a one on one at Fox?
I like to think all questions are legitimate. Yeah, it might not be true, but I would still address the question. Moreover, the fairness doctrine does not address an individual appearance, but having different voices expressing different points of veiw.
Nope. It was me that raised the issue about the law. And, I will ask you the same question.
Is there some requirement (or law) that says any politician must appear on any television show? Does any politician have to speak to whom ever asks them? What leg does Fox have to stand on if there is no requirement that any single politician must appear on their air?
OK. I happen to think it is comical, too.
To my knowledge there has been no memo. And, I am not a member of the fourth estate, just posting on a BLOG like you are.
Are you a member of the fourth estate?
Nope.
Please cut and paste from my comments where I speculated, assigned motive and/or characterized anything Fox news has done.
What is most bizarre about this is that Obobo and his squad of ivy league egg heads don’t get that people are watching Fox because it is inline with their thinking. These geniuses actually believe Fox is shaping their thought.
Axlegrease, the supposed PR whiz kid is oblivious to the fact that the more they assail Fox, the higher FNC’s ratings will climb, and the dumber they look. Egghead theory, meet reality.
It’s called analysis.
Everyone, these are stupid questions.
If Fox is subject to an interview moratorium by the White House, then Fox certainly has the right to report the moratorium, speculate the reason for the moratorium, and offer it’s opinion regarding the moratorium.
No law is required, and it’s not whining.
Something stupid as usual.
This is not just any old blog. This blog is owned by a member of the fourth estate. May I direct your attention to the “terms of use.” As it states, the door could be slammed on your big toe, at any moment:
Asking you if you are a member of the fourth estate is stupid, after you had asked when I had become a member of the fourth estate?
Ummm, OK.
OK.
Yep, MM has her ‘terms of use’ and I have been posting comments for a long while.
When you get your own BLOG and I violate your terms of use, you can slam the door on my big toe.
Finally, since I addressed your question and comment from your post #823823, will you address my comment and answer the question I posed to you from my post #823888?
If not, it is OK, I will not suggest you are stupid or in violation of MM’s ‘terms of use’.
Gotta disagree with that characterization Michelle.
Gibbs is too stupid to know which end of the tube the round comes out of.
If he’s blubbering and stomping his feet over this, what would he do if he faced a tougher foe?
Soldiers deployed face things infinitely tougher than this sniveling wussy. Those wounded face pain and suffering during their recovery much tougher than what the whiner-in-chief is facing.
Children of those deployed face much tougher days than this crybaby.
Obambi needs to stop sniffling cowboy up, do his duty and remember he has those soldiers deployed and send the reinforcements called for by the commander he appointed.
…or there will be many more facing some much tougher choices than the Crybaby-in-Chief.
Disgusting simpleton.
Anyone know if he responded at all to those killed and wounded at Kamdesh?
…or is that beneath him?
On the edge of oblivion
And all the world is Babylon
And all the love and everyone
A ship of fools sailing on…
Everybody have fun tonight…
Zyzzyg, you claimed to have the same power as Glenn Beck in interacting with the White House. I asked about you’re membership in the fourth estate — Glenn Beck has a contract with a media company and you do not.
I’m leaving the rubber room.
I understand your confusion and it is my fault. I should have been more clear. The word “my” in the post led you to believe I was talking about myself.
Cutting and pasting what I originaly wrote with an addition to make it better understood.
Every pundit, talking head, columnist, blogger, editorialist, etc can say the same thing. They can say, as Glenn Beck has said, ‘I have sent the White House my number to call me to discuss this thing and they have yet to call.’
As I said, my bad. I thought it was obvious that the use of “my” in the original was an obvious reference to Glenn Beck, and the pundits, talking heads, columnists, bloggers, editorialists, etc who would give their telephone numbers to the White House in expectation of being called back.
Maybe you can explain why Glenn Beck has an expectation to be called, when others (pundits, talking heads, columnists, bloggers, editorialists) may have the same expectation? Are you suggesting that because he has a media contract, his request should be honored by the White House? Again, how many people are out there that have media contracts, and should the White House call them all?
Have I been clearer? Will you answer the questions?
Is editorializing and speculating childish? Are they doing it in a high-pitched tone? Or are you adding your own assessment to the manner in which they are commenting on it?
I didn’t place them in the same category. In fact, that was the point of the side comment. A perceived lack of courage against an opponent who isn’t all that scary could raise doubts about his temerity regarding a real enemy.
The comment was simply a side opinion. No need to get twisted up into thinking that I put CNN and tyrants in the same category. Al Jazeera, on the the other hand….
We wouldn’t want you to speculate. We have heard that you believe that is whining.
My “failure” to comprehend was a polite way of saying that I believe you might be arguing with yourself. Who here was arguing another issue than the one you seem so intent on clarifying?
Surely not if they’re speculative, right?
No, there is no legal requirement, nor do I believe anyone here or on Fox is making this case. This is why the question is irrelevant. Corkie answered much more succinctly in 823910 and I concur with his statement.
Fair enough. We can laugh together on this.
It can be. It can also be deeply profound. It can be any number of things, and not any one thing.
No. Are you suggesting that they are?
Manner? Would you mean style?
I have already said, that stating the facts as to Pres Obama appearing on the show is one thing, and speculating, guessing, and assigning motive is another. Asking the question, ‘Why will you not (did not) appear on Fox?’ avoids the speculation, guessing and assigning motive.
Ummmm, OK. And, I did not place the Queen of England and a street walker in the same category either. I would treat them differently, as I would treat a tyrant differently from a cable news channel. Would you treat a street walker the same as you would the Queen of England? Would you treat a tyrant the same way you treat a cable channel? Would anyone? Would President Obama?
Morever, perception is not reality. How did Pres Obama treat the pirates off of the Somali coasts? He made the order to take them out. Did he also make the order to use a drone to take out an Al Qaeda leader in Somalia? Yes, he did. You are welcome to dwell on perceptions, I prefer to know the reality.
OK. I think I got the joke. Tyrants and Al Jazeera are in the same category.
Why speculate when you can ask a question?
What? I asked a question. ‘Is there a law requiring a politician appear on any program?’ You added an element to the conversation by speaking to tyrants and cable channels. I simply added another element to advance the conversation. Niether of us is arguing with ourselves. If anything we are having a conversation about Pres Obama appearing, or not appearing, on Fox.
No. Asking a question and getting an answer eliminates speculation.
Thank you for answering the question.
Of course, no one is making that case. Because there is no requirement. There is, however, tradition. I would expect some one to make that point. To make the case that Pres Obama should have appeared on Fox because that is, and has been, a long time accepted practice. Instead, many are making the case by speculating, assigning motive, and guessing about the reason Pres Obama is not appearing on Fox.
Yep, and I also hope that we both can agree that both sides should stop their whinning. Ask direct questions, get direct responses and stop speculating.
Yet, you said:
Which stood to reason that you believed any editorializing or speculation as to why Obama was avoiding Fox, regardless of style, was childish (which is part of the definition of whining).
Personally, I believe that style is a critical factor in the assessment of whining.
Nope. Just trying to lay a finger on your definition of “whining”.
Anita Dunn has answered that question, so at this point it is moot and no longer speculative.
If he had gone to all of the networks, I think it could be argued that he WAS speaking to us. Instead, he chose only to speak to like-minded people, which will get him nowhere, since they all already agree with him.
What good is that, even if what he was selling were legal or good?
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Barack Obama goes on TV and says that there is an entire channel on cable dedicated to attacking him (which isn’t true), yet his own administration has a website dedicated exclusively to attacking (and with extremely weak arguments, I might add) Glenn Beck.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Well if he’s being distracted from passing illegal healthcare laws and bailouts, I’d say this is a good thing!
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Hmmm … This is interesting … A little lever inside a circular …
BOOM!!!
The image was just too much to resist.
HAHA
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
No. Not ‘any’ editorializing or speculation is whinning. And, not every example of editorializing and speculation is whinning. The specific example of what both Fox and the White House are doing in this instance is whinning.
I addressed this when you asked, and I answered that editorializing and speculation can be many things.
OK.
Assessing style and substance with regard to what is said, is certainly fair. In this particular case the substance is the fact that Pres Obama did not appear on Fox. And, the style is the whinning. And, the whinning is the editorializing and speculation as to why he did not appear, which by the way are not facts.
C’mon Salt, ask a direct question and you will get a direct answer from me.
Exactly. Then why has it been suggested that he is afraid, or a coward?
“Pres. Obama effectively looks like a coward. (How we’re supposed to believe he’ll stand up to tyrants in the world when he cannot even face a dissenting cable channel is a mystery.)” Post #823816
If the question as to why he did not appear on Fox was addressed, then why continue to speculate, guess and assign motive?
I think I may have said this to you before, and that is, I have respect you.
I addressed this in Post #823820.
Are you going to address my specific answers to your specific questions from the previous posts between you and me?
It seems cowardly to me to avoid your political opponents (as Dunn has described Fox). He saturated the air with his media tour and very deliberately avoided a network likely to ask him challenging questions on his proposals.
Sure, I don’t know exactly if he is afraid, but that’s the perception. Even The Nation is calling this administration out for whining. I believe they knew they had to be very cautious about Obama’s message given the level of response that has caused even a Democratic congress to pause. If Pres. Obama’s proposals are as solid and defensible as they pretend, why not speak with those that have a differing view. If Fox had mishandled the interview, they would have come off looking bad. As it stands, the administration looks foolish.
I disagreed with the attempt to try and lump Fox into the same category as “whining”. It seems like the White House picked this fight. It’s not whining, in my opinion, to wonder or speculate as to why they did. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this.
OK. We agree that the White House is whinning, and we disagree that Fox is whinning.
Also, meant to say I have respect for you.
The White House hasn’t set up a blog to attack other news organizations—so your question is a non-starter. Did you read through the links that MM posted about the White House blogging attack on “Fox News”? If the answer is yes, move along, because I will not answer further silly questions. I’ll provide one last thought on the issue through this link, which I found at WaPo.
I asked a question and you refuse to answer. So be it.
I’m a little late in response to Mojave Mark, but…
Everybody Wang Chung tonight!