Soooo...
You may or may not have heard by now about the very pronounced stand that the White House has taken in opposition of the FOX News network. In the world of politics and political media/information distribution, this is pretty big. It's not common that a President and his Administration put the cross hairs on and blast a network; let alone a news network.
David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to President Obama, on ABC's "This Week" says that what Fox News reports "is really not news" and that "they push a point of view".
White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel echoed similar comments on CNN's "State of the Union". "I suppose the way to look at it and the way … the president looks at it, we look at it is: It’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."
Their comments were made to clarify statements made by White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, on CNN's "State of the Union", where she claims that Fox News acts as "the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party". She goes on to comment that "when [President Obama] goes on FOX, he understands he's not going on it as a news network at this point, he's going on to debate the opposition".
Is the President and his Administration tight-rope walking a fine line between 1) outing a potentially falsely represented "news network"and 2) attempting to silence a dissenting point of view. The sides of these lines are distinctly different things.
This is not the first time that Obama or his administration has made his opinions on Fox News network known [see here in April].
In early September, Robert Gibbs contends that Fox News reduces its new coverage to that of sensationalized reality television here.
[Having issues embedding the videos, will try again later.]
And there are others, I just really didn't want to go scour through YouTube clips tonight (forgive me!).
But outing a misnomered "news network" is a good thing; right? Exposing a fake, a phony amongst the bunch. IF Fox News is a "poser" entertainment network, then it should be outed and understood as such.
HOWEVER...
This push by the White House teeters above the line into something potentially dangerous. In a Twitter conversation [a twittersation???], a friend of mine made a good point. He pointed out the importance of establishing the difference between attacking a network specifically and attacking a media bias. Point taken.
I'm not a fan of Fox by any stretch of the imagination, but it even makes ME uncomfortable...
I must admit. I mean, even before watching "OutFoxed" a number of years ago, the tactics and methods used by the Fox News network were offensive to me and I chose not to take the network seriously. But that was my decision to do that because of the way that I felt about the network. Honestly, I even turn away from MSNBC from time to time when they get a little too lefty.
Why does this move by the White House rub me the wrong way? Well because of the way that it can be spun. As a former martial artists who competed internationally for a number of years, I understand battle. When you initiate an attack, if you want to score, you must commit to it. But when you attack, don't leave yourself exposed! So although I happen to agree with the stance of the White House on this particular network, I don't completely agree with the tactics being used here. The reason?
This opens up the White House to a right hook [pun intended].
Dependent upon perspective, the White House is either exposing a fraudulent organization guilty of passing biased information off as "fair and balanced" when it is truly representing a political perspective OR, the White House is "shunning dissent". The White House is not turning this same attention toward MSNBC, who leans hard to the left in my perspective. MSNBC happens to side with the President a lot of the time. So because the White House isn't pointing out a network on both ends of the spectrum, just FOX, the POTUS (President of the United States) might be exposing a rib here.
...as if FOX and other dissenting POVs don't have a target on him. The "shunning dissent" side of the argument can be made along side claims of the President trying to silence freedom of speech and gain control over dissenting points of view, taking away citizen choice. That's the punch. That kind of argument will fall right in line with the Health Care scare movement and the Obama Communism/Socialism claims. That is the rib.
I would venture off to say that this is the slippery slope side of the argument (see logic here). But still, it should be considered. Why? Well, because that is a tactic widely used by the loudest voices at either extreme of the political wings' . They venture down the slipperiest of slopes in order to catch on to something, scare and gain followers (not claiming that FOX or MSNBC does that, well...maybe FOX *wink*), and connect it by any means to a broader issue "infringing upon the rights of American citizens".
Before combating an enemy, you have to know what their reaction to your first attack will be, so that you have the second and third waiting on deck, ready to go. Pick up The Art of War by SunTzu (or read it here). I hope that the President isn't exposing his rib here.
The ribs (especially the floating rib) can break due to trauma, which is painful enough--or so I've heard. But it can also puncture a lung, forcing the air out of one. This increases dependence upon the other lung, still in tact. Although very treatable and not a fatal wound (if medical attention is sought quickly), it can cause a slippery slope of other physiological problems. See where I'm going with this? I hope so...All in all, I would hope the President and his White House know what they are doing (just like I was hoping President G. W. Bush knew what he was doing every time he decided to speak).
As Maureen Dowd put it in a NY Times op-ed discussing the President's unwillingness to make enemies, "the president should remember ... that when you’re cooking up a more perfect Union, sometimes you’ve got to break some eggs."
I prefer mine scrambled, with black pepper, chopped green peppers and tomatoes, please.
Over and out.
--
a.Rias
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment