Peters writes: "Few things seem to pique President Obama like Fox News ... None of this has gone unnoticed inside the studios and executive suites of Fox News, which is rebuffing these White House put-downs as a denigration of the presidency."
Obama has been good for Fox News ratings. (photo: Getty Images)
Does Fox News Secretly Want Obama to Win?
19 July 12
onsider some recent barbs from the campaign trail. At a bar in Ohio where a television was tuned to Fox News, the president joked that one of the customers should ask to change the channel. “The customer is always right,” Mr. Obama cracked.
Last week he used the network as a punch line in his stump speech, saying that “Uncle Jim” — a fictional amalgam of his conservative critics — was “a little stubborn and been watching Fox News.”
Then there was an interview with Valerie Jarrett, one of Mr. Obama’s senior advisers. Ms. Jarrett was asked why some voters had the impression that the president was attacking the rich. “Well, they may be watching one particular network,” she sniffed. “CNN?” the interviewer teased.
None of this has gone unnoticed inside the studios and executive suites of Fox News, which is rebuffing these White House put-downs as a denigration of the presidency.
“I think it lowers the office,” Michael Clemente, Fox’s executive vice president of news, said in an interview on Wednesday. “For it to come up as regularly as it does — and it’s not every day but every other week, I’d say — it’s just unusual. Especially given the issues out there, like the lack of new jobs and Syria.”
Of all the items on the president’s plate, Mr. Clemente added, “I would like to be 15th on the list, not 3rd.”
Fox News and the Obama White House have never enjoyed a warm relationship. But after a caustic feud erupted in late 2009, the two seemed to agree to coexist peacefully. Glenn Beck, the incendiary host who called the president a racist, left after a falling-out with executives. The Fox News chairman, Roger Ailes, professed to be steering the network toward a “course correction,” an acknowledgment that it had shifted too hard to the right.
But now, with the presidential campaign entering its most competitive phase, the simmering tensions between Mr. Obama and the country’s highest-rated news channel threaten their fragile détente.
The White House and the Obama campaign in Chicago both view Fox News with a degree of skepticism. “We work with Fox News and their reporters in a professional way every day,” said Jay Carney, the White House press secretary. “But we’re not naïve about their business model.”
Turn on Fox News and much of the coverage is focused on stories that are unflattering to the White House. Far more than any other network, it chronicles daily developments in the scandal over Operation Fast and Furious, which involves a botched federal gun-tracking operation that has become a cause célèbre among conservatives. A Congressional investigation into the matter — another news event that has received careful attention on Fox — resulted in a contempt vote in the House of Representatives against Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. Fox News was the only cable news network early on to carry proceedings from the contempt hearings live.
The details of the bankruptcy of Solyndra, an alternative energy company that received $528 million in federal loan guarantees after heavily lobbying the White House, are well known to regular Fox viewers. So far this week, the story dominating Fox newscasts has been the conservative furor over a recent remark by the president that business owners owed much of their success to government investment.
Fox News tends to benefit when it covers Mr. Obama and the Democrats aggressively. Indeed, during the height of the 2009 spat between Fox News and the White House, the channel’s ratings grew 8 percent over all. And while many of its commentators and on-air guests may be rooting for a Mitt Romney victory, privately Fox executives say that a second Obama term could be the best thing that ever happened to their network.
Conversely, Mr. Obama has enjoyed hitting the Fox News punching bag now and again. During his 2008 campaign, just mentioning the network in a stump speech would rile up the crowd. A typical dig at Fox News would go something like this:
Mr. Obama would remark how engaged voters seemed to be. They were watching the debates, CNN and C-Span, he said. Then he would pause dramatically. “And Fox News,” he added, to a chorus of sonorous boos.
Political experts said Mr. Obama’s swipes at Fox News then and now seem to be in keeping with a strategy to discredit his opponents, a tactic the campaign has deployed rather effectively.
“Whoever it is who may be a source of strength for Romney, they’re out there trying to discredit them in some fashion,” said David Gergen, an adviser to Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. “It’s an old tactic, and it often works.”
The White House insists that the president does not have a preoccupation with Fox News, and that both of the president’s recent Fox quips were ad-libbed. The remark in Ohio came in an unrehearsed exchange with a potential voter. And the “Uncle Jim” comment, while uttered during a campaign speech, was not part of the written text.
“You would be surprised how low on the list of priorities this is,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director.
Mr. Clemente says he assumes that Mr. Obama feels frustrated with how he is covered, and from time to time likes to vent. The intensity of their dispute, he added, is far lower than it was in 2009.
“We’re examining and analyzing,” Mr. Clemente said. “And I think that can be annoying at times.”
After all, he noted dryly, “we’re not C-Span.”
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
and thus the continuance unabated of Reuperts empire....is that not Fox's final aim? First the economic....so their corporation may flourish?
Is not Obama with Geithner, no arrests in subprime, no backing of those repossessed owning homes.....littl e to no regulations, and now complicitness in libor fraud......is that not it.....makes sense for Fox to support him.....ultimat ely they are the same.
I'll vote obama..for the bells and whistles...but not much more, nor expecting more..
Of course Fox secretly wants him to win. If it looks like they don't it is all simply smoke and mirrors and a charade.
However, if something ain't broke, don't fix it. If the Obama presidency is working so well for them why rock the boat? It is best to work with what you already know.
Plus, let's be honest, Obama will be re-elected....
How strange it is then, that the "dictator" Obama has not muzzled the press. And where was the honest, antagonistic, questioning press when Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were fabricating the "evidence" for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
To get favorable coverage on specific issues relationships are established between governmental sources and reporters/editors.
If a reporter/editor wants to survive and get any news at all they must in these relationships produce things wanted on occasion by their sources...so they do.
Other means of covert manipulation exist depending on this relationship.. A well honed CIA tactic is (when a story of damaging truth appears)....to utilize these reporters to produce articles related to the true one but off the mark. Thusly diluting the impact and perception of truth of the initial....
So overt censorship does not exist in called democracies.... covert by such means certainly does.
AS corporations own national media...mostly things are just not reported......o ne person shooting another (in say florida)...beco mes headline news for months while extreme weather (drought related to global warming)....sin gularly only are mentioned..not in greater context.
Iraq....a thousand pro iraq mentions in all media leading up to the war for every one against...not overtly censored (the idea it was not right)...covert ly by sheer volume. Such are the means...covert, not overt.
LOL. The biggest lowlife bar in television history taking the president to task about lowering the bar? Go fish Ms. Clemente.
RSS feed for comments to this post