Yes, Obama Did An Interview With Fox, Okay?
There's been a bit of debate in the blogosphere over whether this appearance by Barack Obama on Fox News meant that he'd granted an interview to the liberal-targeted network only days after the candidates had all pulled out of the Fox/Congressional Black Caucus debate.
MyDD's Matt Stoller yesterday said he had, and went on to accuse Obama of ending the "Fox News freeze out." But then he updated by linking to this and saying that in fact it had been a "general press conference." On the other hand, Media Bistro said based on unclear sourcing that it had been an interview.
So we checked in with the Obama campaign. They told us that, yes, it was an interview:
It was with Fox alone -- he did a series of interviews with cable and broadcast networks following McCain’s mention of him in his Iraq speech.
Just doing this to clarify the record. We report, you decide, and all that.
Advertisement
Again with the cynicism... (Haha)
April 13, 2007 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if McCain is spewing lies and garbage about Obama on FOX News with regards to Obama's position on the Iraq war, then Obama has every right to go on that network to set the record straight. You don't let lies fester even on FOX.
It's as simple as that. You defend yourself.
April 13, 2007 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm of two minds about this one. On the one hand why not defend yourself in every forum where you're being attacked...on the other, if you believe that the key to weakening Fox is to deny it the legitimacy that appearing on the network brings, this clearly doesn't help...
April 13, 2007 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama could have defended himself on any number of media outlets. Giving Faux an interview after refusing to participate in a debate sponsored by them looks like hypocrisy.
April 13, 2007 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
I disagree. It is not the job of a candidate to weaken a news agency. In fact, it is dangerous territory. I agree with a candidate not wanting to "do business" with a network because you disagree with the way they present news. That is fine. Don't participate. But it shouldn't be their objective to "weaken" or marginalize them. Government shouldn't be in the business of weakening the press.
April 13, 2007 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, you raise a fair point. clearly it's straying near a line. on the other hand, don't Democrats as a party have the right to collectively decide not to help legitimize a network that is hostile to them? I mean, they're not *obliged* to go on, right?
April 13, 2007 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not having debates on Fox was a good idea, and the candidates who said they were not going to participate made the right decision. However, Dems should still try to defend themselves on Fox News. If no Dems go on Fox, we cede that ground entirely. Unfortunately, swing voters in swing states still watch Fox News. We want to weaken McCain and blunt his attacks now, not let them fester. Obama himself can do that much, much better than a surrogate.
It was also just a short interview, not a sitdown in studio or an appearance on Fox News Sunday, which, according to my TPM Daily Digest, Sen. Levin (D-MI) is preparing to do this week and many other Dems do semi-regularly. That might be a place to start if Dems are serious about cutting back on their Fox appearances in order to send a message or play hardball with Fox. A Dem could cancel an appearance for every serious Fox misstep.
It's also not like Murdoch held a fundraiser for Obama, as he did for Hillary. That's really legitimizing Fox.
April 13, 2007 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care either way. But I'm not so sure that people would be as forgiving if Clinton did the same at this point. I'd chalk that up to cynicism, but then again, I'm cynical.
April 13, 2007 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is very likely true. But it's also true that Obama doesn't have the backstory of "partnering" with the likes of Santorum and Brownback, voting for the war, and basically having spent the last seven years desperately and shamelessly triangulating in hopes of appeasing people who are confirmed in hating him--thus looking pathetic as well as foolish.
April 13, 2007 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except it's not a real "news" agency.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
April 13, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats should flat out boycott Fox "News."
Obama can go on CNN or any other news network anytime he wants, and he can refute whatever Fox "News" says about him (if that's why he went on...). All he would have to do is say he wants air time, and he would get it.
He also has his own web site, or can post a blog on Daily Kos, or here, or Huffington's site.
He could post a video on YouTube, and millions would watch it, and every news network would air it.
Fox would probably even air it.
There's simply no reason to go on Fox. No one who cheers on Sean Hannity is ever going to vote for Barack Obama.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
April 13, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note that one of the initial responses that you mention was that it was just a press conference. So a question immediately arises as to why Obama could not just do a press conference instead of granting interviews to each agency (whether we call them "news" or not).
I believe, there is a perfectly legitimate reason for this. And FOX is at the core of this reason. When one gives a press conference, it is usually a scripted message with a couple of fairly trite Q&A--just look at the Bush press conferences. This is the kind of appearance that is easy to spin.
An interview that is expected to be used--even if edited--is another matter. There is actually a tighter message control--provided that questions are not of the Citizen Kane variety--and the candidate appears more candid and forthcoming. Of course, an outlet like FOX can still cut and paste and come up with other ways to spin it, but it is harder with an interview.
But I also don't believe there has been a party-wide freeze out. There has been a relatively--I stress relatively for a reason--concerted effort to prevent FOX from having a say in the presidential campaign, but it's been limited to organized events. I have not seen or heard anyone other than Edwards saying that they will not give FOX the time of day. There is a world of difference between pre-planned, organized events and day-to-day news-cycle reactions.
If you want to have something to complain about, complain about Katie Couric. This Obama story should have been a non-starter.
April 13, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely. The Dems should ignore Fox News; to do otherwise only legitimizes them.
April 13, 2007 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't think Clinton has been on Fox News? Murdoch held a fundraiser for her, for goodness sake!
April 13, 2007 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The candidates and TV outlets both prefer doing a series of very short interviews for each channel to press conferences. Easier to use, more personal seeming, etc.
April 13, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, people aren't going to seek out Obama's day-to-day comments on his website or YouTube. That's just plain ridiculous.
Second, I hate to break it to you, but there are Fox News viewers who are swing voters in swing states. I know dozens in Ohio alone. Union households, etc. We cannot cede that ground entirely if we want to win. Pull the debates, yes, don't give them any special news or announcements or lengthy sit-down interviews, yes, but don't cede that ground.
April 13, 2007 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
I agree with you that Dem's are not obliged to go on Fox. And don't get me wrong, I like the message it sends when Dem candidates unite around not appearing in an obviously biased forum. I just disagree with the sentiment that candidates should take overt action to weaken a news outlet. I'd rather the marketplace of ideas do that for them.
April 13, 2007 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said "day to day" comments. No one is talking about his going on Fox to provide "day to day comments," so I don't know why you even brought that up?
But you're missing my point -- if Obama has a message to get out, (a) he s a rock star, and any news media outlet would jump at the chance to interview him, and (b) there has never been a time in probably all of civilization with this many media outlets, and Obama could use any or all of them to get out his message.
And the "dozens" of people you know in Ohio is anecdotal. I do not believe Fox's core audience would ever vote Democratic.
In fact, why is there this assumption that all these people will listen to Fox "News" and nothing else?I don't believe in this day and age people *only* use one news outlet. If those supposed swing Fox voters are truly interested in the political process, they will seek out Obama's views. They will go to his website, or they will also watch CNN, or they will read newspapers and magazines. And they will watch Obama in the primary debates.
There is simply no reason for a Dem to go on Fox "News."
Dissent Protects Democracy.
April 13, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd rather the marketplace of ideas do that for them.
Wouldn't Murdoch be willing to even take a loss on Fox?
The marketplace ain't all it's cracked up to be.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
April 13, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since there has been an effort to marginalize Fox News, has Clinton been on?
April 13, 2007 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
UserRating Plowboy0
Who is Plowboy, why can s/he give 0s, and when will s/he learn how to use the ratings system?
April 13, 2007 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beats me. Who cares?
I criticize Hillary for lots of things, from corruption to conservatism, from kissing up to power to putting down the working class but it is silly to criticize any candidate for using free media.
None of the network factotums are more powerful and persuasive in their destruction of liberal values than Tim Russert or Chris Matthews. Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are little more than caricatures that have the ability to do harm to their cause and little good.
Best, Terry
April 14, 2007 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink