RSS
Home
White House/Fox News 'truce' story triumph of spin over substance
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Fox News Channel
One of the ironic turns in the news business is that as the political climate has become more shrill, the political coverage has increasingly focused more on the political process than on the actual merits of the story. There are times when I watch any of the cable news outlets and I begin to feel that if aliens suddenly appeared over American cities tomorrow, the lead story on CNN, MSNBC and FNC would be focused on what the arrival of the aliens meant for the 2010 mid-term elections.
That emphasis on process is one reason I've declined to wade into breathless daily coverage of the "war" between The White House and the Fox News Channel. While there is an actual significant issue to be discussed, the news coverage of the spat quickly turned into a discussion of the political impact of the feud. Will this hurt the White House with moderate voters? Does FNC have some secret political agenda and was the "Roger Ailes for President" rumor really just a clever way to make political points? Most of what passes for reporting on the issue focuses more on reporting the spin from the various parties than trying to unravel the real meat of the story.
The story took an even more surreal turn on Wednesday, when White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reportedly met with Michael Clemente, Fox News' senior VP for news. The White House meeting apparently lasted about 20 minutes and it took even less time for reports of the meeting to begin surfacing in various media outlets.
Let's be clear. This meeting was much more about political spin than anything else. It was a chance for both sides to take some anonomous shots at each other, while still publicly remaining above it all.
Within minutes of the meeting, I heard from a White House source who filled me in on the meeting. Yes, it was off-the-record, but this was the chance for the White House to reach out to Fox and reassure the cable news network that while the criticism would continue, the Obama Administration would not block the network's reporters from covering the White House in any way.
As for why the Fox News Channel agreed to the meeting, the best explanation is this quote from a "Fox source" that appeared in a short post on Politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28856.html
the marching orders are to “continue doing what we’re doing – reporting the news, asking tough questions and providing analysis/opinion on shows like O’Reilly, Beck and Hannity.”
It's clear from the Politico piece that FNC was pretty quickly out there spinning their side of the meeting as well.
And that is the beauty of a meeting like this one. Since it's off-the-record, the participants can say whatever they want about the discussion and use whatever spin on the facts that they feel is appropriate.
It's the tiresome sort of story that is all-too-common in today's media environment. It's journalism by way of spin, and at the end of the day, I don't viewers learn much about the real facts. The worst headlines, from "White House Expands 'War On Free Speech'" to "Why Fox News Can't Tell The Truth" are just hype and opinion of the worst kind. They don't provide clarity or facts or foster a discussion of what really matters.
And there are some serious journalistic issues to be discussed here. I firmly believe that politicians of any persuasion should be accountable to the voters and owe it to the American public to make themselves available to journalists who might not agree with them. Dick Cheney should have the stones to appear on some media outlet other than one that's likely to ask only fawning questions. And Obama and his administration should be doing interviews with everyone from Fox News to Hugh Hewitt.
Maybe these interviews will be unfair, maybe not. But the underlying point is that if we have learned anything since the events of 9/11, it's that our potential for openess and rational political discussion is what sets us apart from the people who hate us. You can bet that there aren't a lot of coherent political roundtables taking place in Pakistan right now.
If that's the model that you strive for, then these silly feud stories are one more step in moving us towards that future.
This isn't about whether or not the Fox News Channel is picking a political side. Either you believe that or you don't and no amount of spin is going to change your mind. And it's the same for claims that the White House is attempting to muzzle free speech.
If both the White House and FNC were serious about de-escalating the feud, they would issue a joint statement saying "Hey, some things were said on both sides that were unfortunate and we're going to try and get along in the future."
But that wouldn't suit the purposes of either side. Which means we can look forward to days and days of continuing coverage of the coverage of the coverage.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
.jpg)
