After the firestorm of media blowback that greeted Anita Dunn's declaration of war on Fox News last Sunday, you might think a little caution would be used before the administration played media critic again.
But there was Rahm Emanuel, White House chief of staff, essentially making the same bad argument in an appearance Sunday on CNN's John King's "State of the Union" that the White House is righteous in trying to ostracize Fox because Fox is not a "news network" -- it's an "arm" of the Republican Party, to quote Dunn.
As many problems as I have with Fox News, I am fundamentally opposed to any administration trying to bully any part of the press into submission.
But beyond that, what about the obvious intellectual bankruptcy of the White House argument? Is MSNBC a "real news network"? The highly-partisan, pro-administration channel doesn't even cover the news on weekends. It runs prison documentaries instead -- something I have also complained long and loud about. But that's okay, I guess, as far as the hypocritical press critics in the West Wing are concerned.
Here is the exchange Sunday between John King and Emanuel. King asks a clear question, and Emanuel gives him a bad answer. That's because Emanuel has a bad argument he is trying to make.
KING: I'm trying to get behind the curtain and understand why your White
House has decided that it is in its interest to have this, boom, with
our rival, FOX News. Anita Dunn, one of your staff, calls it the -- the
communications director, the wing of the Republican Party. Why?
EMANUEL: Well, no, it's not so much a conflict with FOX News. But unlike
-- I suppose, the way to look at it and the way we -- the president
looks at it and we look at it, is, it is not a news organization so much
as it has a perspective. And that's a different take. And more
importantly, does not have -- the CNNs and others in the world basically
be led and following FOX, as if that -- what they're trying to do is a
legitimate news organization in the sense of both sides and a sense of
value (ph) opinion.
As muddy as his words and his thinking are, there is a clear attempt by Emanuel to cut Fox from the herd: "it's not so much a news organization as...." He is also trying to link the other news channels to CNN and distinguish them from Fox. Among the "others" would be MSNBC, no?
I am not even going to take on his silly suggestion that the White House is attacking Fox because it fears the rest of the media will be led into temptation and sin by the success of Fox. At least, that is what he seems to be saying. (And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from all evil, amen, Mr. Emanuel, please.)
Outside of Lou Dobbs, CNN does offer a model worthy of emulation when it comes to emphasizing fact-based journalism rather than opinion. I have written that story repeatedly. Fox is not CNN, that's for sure.
But it is no worse than MSNBC, and it has been performing an all-important function in serving as watchdog of the White House.
And I repeat what I said last week: We should all be concerned about any administration trying to do to anyone in the press what this one is trying to do to Fox. This is the bad stuff of which Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were made when it came to trying to bully the press.
UPDATE: Talk about doubling down on a bad bet, here is what David Axelrod, White House senior adviser, told George Stephanopoulos, of ABC's "This Week" about Fox:
"The only argument that Anita was making is that they are not really a news organization, if you watch even its not even their commentators, but a lot of their news program. It's really not news, it's pushing a point of view and the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours, ought not to treat them that way...."
Another example of trying to cut Fox from the herd. And don't you love Axelrod's patronizing tone in telling Stephanopoulos how his news organization should behave?
UPDATE: Here is Fox response from Michael Clemente, senior vice president of news, Fox News:
"Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars. The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues."
