It’s every liberal’s worst nightmare – a network where talking heads take certain grassroots movements (Birthers, Tea Party, etc.) to heart, exaggerating their influence in the current American political discourse to start an unnecessary and dangerous discussion rooted in racial and religious intolerance … I mean – don’t show your biases, Matt – some liberals feel the network leans more right than other network. It’s Fox News, and the Obama administration, until recently, waged war on America’s most-watched cable news network.
On Nov. 11, the White House confirmed that it would grant Fox News’ Major Garrett an interview with President Obama after weeks of holding out on the network. The Huffington Post reports, “The Obama administration’s battle against Fox News has been two-pronged: members of the administration have characterized Fox News as not a legitimate news network while also regularly denying the network interviews with key figures. When Obama did the Sunday morning talk show rounds, for instance, he skipped out on ‘Fox News Sunday’ with Chris Wallace.”
Cable news networks have been the targets of politicians for years, but there doesn’t seem to be a large effect by calling these networks out. During the Bush White House, and still today, the time-old “liberal media” argument has been made against CNN and MSNBC, yet both networks still remain strong.
Since this quarrel has stopped, this doesn’t seem to be a continuing theme of Obama’s term as president, but this was a strange digression in the first year of his presidency. Was it appropriate?
So, the question remains: by isolating Fox News, does this weaken the Fox News’ legitimacy or does it delegitimize the Obama White House? Is it really worth it to pick fights with certain networks, denying them interviews and publically calling their journalistic practices unethical, or should politicians try to get their message out no matter the media outlet?