The relationship between the government and the press is rarely a cozy one--nor should it be. In our representative political system, freedom of the press exists to increase government's accountability to the public it represents.
During the Bush administration, Fox faced allegations of spreading Bush's political agenda at the expense of actual news while other networks were accused of a liberal bias in their coverage. Now that the political tables have turned, the networks are under fire from the right for cushy treatment of the Obama administration, while Fox has been accused of crossing lines of decency, journalistic integrity, and even patriotism, in its anti-Obama coverage. Traditionally this back and forth between media and white house resembles a tug of war, or perhaps an elegant martial art--one in which a set of rules is followed, opponents easily anticipate the other's next move, and no one gets seriously hurt. At the end of the day, these two entities need each other: The press needs their story, and the administration needs the exposure.
Or do they? Recent events point to what may be a fundamental shift in this long-standing relationship. The Obama administration communications director, Anita Dunn, in her criticism against right-leaning Fox News went so far as to call it a "wing of the Republican Party." Statements like this suggest that the administration no longer finds it useful to play along with Fox and risk contributing to its legitimacy as a news organization.
The blogosphere is full of contradicting views on what this all means and how it will play out. What Redstate is calling war and "a blatant attack against the First Amendment right of freedom of the press", liberal Huffington Post is terming a "more aggressive strategy." Is the Obama administration picking a fight? or did Fox start it, using their news slots for endless loops of ACORN stories and attacks on the administration?
Whichever view you hold, it is clear that Fox and the Obama administration are hitting each other where it hurts: their legitimacy. While the Obama administration and Fox News may find a way to exist without even the nominal cooperation of the other, neither a news organization or a presidency can be effective without some degree of public confidence and legitimacy.
While the jabs by the Obama administration might be sharp and divisive, it would be wrong to assume that they aren't politically calculated. Whether they are effective or not, that's another matter. Redstate along with other conservative blogs suggests that such tactics will only drive more support to Fox News. David Waldman of liberal blog, the Daily Kos, disagrees.
You can view a more in depth discussion amongst bloggers on potential outcomes of the new strategy here:
It remains to be seen whether or not the Obama administration chose the best way to deal with Fox. I would argue that Fox' misleading coverage and partisan tactics has left the administration with very few good choices. Yes, the press should be free to criticize the president. At it's best, this freedom advances accountability and the public good. Fox, however seems to embody partisanship for the sake of partisanship. The tone of their programming comes off like a sneer, trumpeting and even exalting in the failures of our leaders. To expose the shortfalls of our elected leaders is one thing--to root for their shortfalls is another. With such a twisted perspective, Fox news has me siding with Anita Dunn and the Obama administration. What kind of public good could Fox possibly be serving with such a toxic attitude?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment