Sign up for The Media Today, CJRâs daily newsletter.
President Obama used his interview with Rolling Stone to open a new offensive in the White House’s verbal war with Fox News. But he also seemed to be making a more subtleâand more interestingâpoint.
Said the president:
The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition. It is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.
Leave aside for a moment Obamaâs criticism of Fox Newsâs point of view as âdestructive.â What caught our eye was the presidentâs correct assessment that the âobjectiveâ model of journalism is a relatively recent development, and that weâve had an unapologetically opinionated press before. In other words, thereâs nothing fixed and inviolable about the âobjectiveâ modelâa model that, as weâve argued, has some major limitations. And despite the hand-wringing about media bias, the recent breakdown of strict objectivity in some corners of the media (not just Fox, but also MSNBC, and online outlets like The Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, and Andrew Breitbartâs network of sites) isnât so unprecedented or terrifying.
Indeed, the debate over Fox can muddle these issues more than it clarifies them. You can believe that Fox is a force for ill in the world, simply because it promotes an ideology you disagree withâindeed, liberals like Obama logically should believe this. But you can also believeâas Obama perhaps appears toâthat thereâs nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a media outlet having a point of view, and that such a model has deep roots in our history.
Of course, one could also argue that itâs fine for Fox to have an ideology, but that, by selecting only those facts that support its point of view and ignoring contradictory evidence, it often promotes that ideology in a fundamentally dishonest way that runs counter to the basic precepts of any journalism, objective or not. (UPDATE, 2:45pm: Case in point: In the same interview, Obama was asked what music he’d been listening to lately, and mentioned Bob Dylan, the Stones, Maria Callas, Nas, and Lil Wayne, prompting Fox News to declare: “President of the United States Loves Gangsta Rap.”)
Still, the larger point that Obama seems to be driving at remains: weâve had an opinionated press before, weâre now moving that way again, and it doesnât have to mean the destruction of the Republic. Whether we think that individual news outlets like Fox or MSNBC are beneficial or harmful will depend largely on whether or not we agree with their point of view.
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.