You campaign in poetry, the saying goes; you govern in prose.
Here is some poetry, courtesy of Barack Obama, on the night his election win ushered in his transition from Hopeful Campaigner to President-Elect: “To those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.”
Poetic? Oh, definitely. Inspiring? Melodic? Suggestive of community and inclusivity and the transcendence of petty partisanship? Yep, yep, and yep.
So, then. Here, now, is some prose—courtesy of White House communications director Anita Dunn, appearing on CNN’s Reliable Sources yesterday morning—outlining the administration’s “new, more aggressive press strategy” for Howie Kurtz and the nation: “Let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”
Prose, indeed. Dunn, you might have guessed, was describing the team at the Fox News Channel—they of dubious Fairness and Balance, they of We Reporting/You Deciding, they of Beck and O’Reilly, and therefore of Operatic Patriotism and Populist Indignation, etc. And the presidential spokeswoman didn’t stop at the they’re-not-news remark. Instead, she continued: “What I think is fair to say about Fox, and certainly the way we view it, is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party.”
Dunn’s declaration in this case is notable not merely for the melodrama of its partisanship (which would make it worthy, ironically, of Fox), or for its artful embodiment of recent rifts between FNC and the administration (the ACORN story and its offshoots, Fox and Friends’s “typical white person” fiasco, etc.), but also for the shift it signals: from the we’re-in-this-together optimism of the Obama transition to the rather more cynical posture—if-you-want-access-to-the-president-you’d-better-play-by-our-rules—of the Obama White House. (See, for example: the White House’s snub of Fox News during Obama’s five-network media blitz last month.)
On the one hand, of course, this general turnabout is a predictable stop on a president’s traditional path of poetry-to-prose: the business of governing is notoriously untidy, and effective leadership depends in large part on a politician’s ability to recognize that fact. Cynicism, alas, has a place in politics.
On the other hand, though, the administration’s apparent new ‘strategy’ toward Fox News—essentially, to deny that what the network provides is ‘news’ in the first place—is perilous in a particularly prose-y sort of way. Fox News—which is, both in addition to and because of its other notable characteristics, the number-one rated cable news network in the U.S.—has several million viewers daily. In suggesting that those viewers aren’t consuming good-faith information, but rather Republican propaganda, the administration is not only glibly ignoring the substantial disconnect between Fox’s reporting and its pundit-ing; it is also implicitly suggesting that the viewers in question don’t deserve anything but propaganda. Otherwise, wouldn’t the White House, rather than simply alienating the network and leaving it to its wretched nefariousness, redouble its efforts to reach out to Fox’s audience—“I will be your president, too”?
We live in an age of unprecedented choice among our media, which means that we live as well in an age of unprecedented ability to cherry-pick the information we consume. Few things, in the news, are truly universal anymore. One that still is, however, is our president—as a leader, as a narrative-driver, as a maker of news. Indeed, the premise of the presidency is that it is, finally, transcendent of the person who holds its office: whether the Oval occupant is named Clinton or Bush or Obama—and wherever he may fall for you personally on the line between Demigod and Dolt—the fact of the presidency itself is conducive to community. It unites us even in our differences.

I see we've substituted "transparency" for "invisibility" in the Obama administration.
It's no wonder Obama hates Fox - Obama's crazy policies can't suffer scrutiny, and Fox is the only MSM outlet that will scrutinize Obama. But to seriously pout and whine? If you can't stand the heat...
This is another clear sign of the Chosen One's immaturity and lack of leadership acumen. He hasn't learned yet that the buck stops with him and that waving his hand majestically doesn't fix things. He'll soon learn that he can run, but he can't hide.
Only a truly naive upstart would smack the face of the most-watched news in the country when he's simultaneously trying to cram a radical agenda down the throats of TV-addicted voters.
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 12 Oct 2009 at 07:41 PM
I'm glad you are calling the Obama admin on this, but I have yet to see any of the major news outlets do so.
Frankly I find this much more troubling - less "petty" and more "demagogic." My tax dollars are being used to curtail freedom of the press? And this is being done by the same guy who espoused "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"?
Obama may be naive, but "Intolerant" is a better description.
#2 Posted by JLD, CJR on Mon 12 Oct 2009 at 11:29 PM
Fox News loves this sort of thing, because to consumers who are not particularly ideological, such as swing voters (who, by definition, vote Republican sometimes), the 'blowback' might be that the other news outlets are seen as soft on Obama and his team, just as administration ratings and the Democratic Party's fortunes decline.
Why can't 'neutral' press critics break down and concede that while Fox unquestionably leans 'Right', most of the rest of the television, radio, and newspaper media lean 'Left', especially on the social issues that are the great divide in our political culture. I wouldn't rely on Fox alone for news, but I wouldn't rely on the networks or CNN or MSNBC either - the latter clearly give away a social-left bias in their selection of what is and isn't 'news'. We now have vigorous debate and coverage of news that is embarrassing to liberals and liberal groups, which was very hard to find before Fox. That is a good thing. Fox has never done anything quite as sleazy as has The New York Times in the latter's performance in the Duke/lacrosse affair three years ago - which was clearly driven by Mr. Sulzberger's political obsessions . . . Does anyone take the Times seriously on race and gender issues? C'mon, admit it. Yet the Times is still the de facto assignment editor and talking-points generator for the networks, etc.
#3 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 13 Oct 2009 at 12:51 PM
ChickaBOOMer: Nip It In The Bud
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2009/10/nip-it-in-bud.html
#4 Posted by StewartIII, CJR on Wed 14 Oct 2009 at 09:32 AM
Here we go again - supposedly "trained" journalists resorting to false equivalence and lazy ethics. Fox needs to be checked, and no one else is doing it. Do your job and call out Fox for its incredible bias.
#5 Posted by Matt Nall, CJR on Thu 15 Oct 2009 at 06:02 PM
It's a free country and a free press. Obama doesn't owe these scummy people an interview any more than Bush owed any of the other networks interviews when he gave exclusive access to Fox News and put huge pressure on the non-conservative press outlets to give him positive coverage. Conservatives attack the media ALL THE TIME.
Fox is attacking democrats ALL THE TIME.
There is no taboo against making a public observation of a fact.
It's a non story when a republican does it to everybody, it should be just as insignificant w hen a democrat does it to fox.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 16 Oct 2009 at 03:18 PM
Do you not remember the famous PIPA poll?
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
People who watch Fox News have more of their facts scrambled than anyone else.
#7 Posted by Tom J, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 01:28 AM