Obama and Fox News

Frank, Thomas. “Obama is Right About Fox News.” The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal, 28 October 2009. Web. 29 October 2009 <Ihttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574499671746743510.html>.

Read this article

According to Thomas Frank, President Obama is accurate in his criticism of Fox News and his Communications Director, Anita Dunn, is corrrect when she says that the Fox News network is "a wing of the Republican Party." Mr. Frank also points out that Fox is capitalizing on criticism from the White House by portraying it as another example of "Middle America's disrespectful treatment by the liberal elite." In addition, Fox is relating its "persecution" to President Nixon's enemies list and to the actions he took to try to silence the Washington post. Frank points out that Fox News is actually the one with connections to the Nixon administration. They regularly featured G.Gorden Liddy, on of Nixon's henchmen, on their network. In addition, Roger Ailes, Fox network's chairman, was an advisor to President Nixon in 1968. Frank goes on to give an example of what his thinks is biased reporting on Fox's part. Fox News claimed that the reason the New York Times published stories about President Bush's wiretapping in 2005 was that the Times wanted to discourage Senators from "reauthorizing the Patriot Act". Frank describes Fox News by saying that it is "different, that it is intensely politicized, that it inhabits an alternate reality defined by an imaginary conflict between noble heartland patriots and devious liberals. -- to be aware of these things is not the act of a scheming dictatorial personality, it is the obvious conclusion to anyone with eyes and ears." Mr. Frank does, however, criticize the way President Obama dealt with the situation. Simply denouncing Fox News gave the network more reason to claim persecution. According to Frank, President Obama and his administration should have used "sarcasm, irony, and a little humor" to get their points accross. Instead, Obama's attacks have just helped Fox's ratings.

I agree with Mr. Frank that President Obama's criticisms of the Fox News network were "clumsy" and that humor would have been a more effective tool in trying to get people to not take Fox News seriously. I do not agree with him, however, that Fox News is 'inhabited by people who live in an alternate reality defined by an imaginary conflict between heartland patriots and devious liberals." I acknowledge that Fox presents stories from a conservative viewpoint but , in a way, that provides balance to the other networks that have a more liberal approach. More evidence that Fox is not extreme is the fact that its audience is more politically diverse than CNNs. The Pew Survey, which, according to Brogden Kipley of The Chronicle Herald, is the most respected social research organization in the United States, monitors the media thoroughly and without favoritism. The Pew Survey found that the Fox News audience is made up of 39% Repubicans, 33% Democrats, and 22% Independents. CNN's audience is made up of 18% Republicans, 51% Democrats, and 33% Independents. Those figures show that Fox does not just appeal to right wing extremists., but to a much broader audience. As of January 2009, Fox News had already had 83 consecutive months at number one, and has now been the number one news network for eight straight years. I can understand why it is difficult for President Obama to take the criticism that Fox News puts forth about him, but as President, he needs to be able to focus on the issues that are important to the nation and take criticism from the press without spending his time and energy trying to squelch their right to say it.

President Obama and The Nobel Peace Prize?

Stephens, Bret. “The Perfect Nobel Pick.” Wall Street Journal. Wall Street Journal, 12 October 2009. Web. 15 October 2009 <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704429304574467080047317314.html>.

Read this article

In "The Perfect Nobel Pick", Bret Stephens implies that the selection of President Obama as the newest Nobel Prize winner should not be much of a surprise because his choice is consistent with many of the past winners. While some of the winners have been deserving people who accomplished much, like Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa, many over the last 100 years have been obscure figures that have not left a lasting mark on history. According to Oriana Fallaci, they share a common characteristic, they are what he calls "Goodists". He defines Goodists as "the people who believe all conflict stems from avoidable misunderstanding. Who think that the world's evils spring from technology, (as in military-industrial), and everything else, except from the hearts of men, where love abides. Who mistake wishes for possibilities. Who put a higher premium on their own intentions than on the efficacy of their actions. Who champion education as the solution whatever the problem. Above all, Goodists are the people who like to be good." The Nobel Commitee tends to recognize people like the Goodists. An example of a Goodist is past Secretary of State Kelloge who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1929 for trying to ban war "as an instrument of the government."

I have had a hard time understanding how President Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize when the nominations were due just twelve days after he took office. If Stephens is right about the way the Nobel Committee thinks, then that explains how they could have selected Obama. It does not matter to them that he has not accomplished much, it is enough that he pledges to "reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflict with Muslim nations, and strengthen the U.S.'s role in combating climate change." In other words, he fits the definition of a Goodist and is the "Perfect Pick" according to Nobel Prize winning standards. President Obama's winning the award has not made me think more of him; it actually has made me think less of the award. Most Democrats and Republicans agree that the award was given very premature and it should take more than just getting elected as president to receive it. President Obama now needs to back up what he said he was going to do in order to fulfill the standards of the Nobel Peace Prize or at least what the standards should be.

President or TV Celebrity?

Rove, Karl. “The President Risks Getting Stale.” The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2009. Web. October 2, 2009 <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574430883099005144.html>.

Read this article

In his article in The Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove makes the point that President Obama's appearing on so many Sunday television shows without presenting any new ideas hurt him politically. Rove says that Obama appeared defensive and the fact that he refused to be interviewed by Fox News' Chris Wallace made him seem afraid to be challenged. In his interview with George Stephanopolis of ABC, President Obama denied that his proposed fine for people who do not buy health care insurance is a tax. Stephanopolis pointed out that, according to Webster's Dictionary, the fine does meet the definition of a tax. It became obvious that Obama did not want to call it a tax because he had promised not to raise taxes on anyone making less than 250,000 a year. Rove goes on to criticize Obama's answers to Bob Schieffer's questions on Face The Nation. The topics were "waste and abuse" in health care and Obama's idea that insurers and drug companies should pay higher taxes because of their big profits. After offering some of the Republican ideas as alternatives, Rove returns to his main point that Obama's TV appearances are not helping him or his proposed health care plan. Rove says that "this health care plan is not only losing public support on its own merit, it is diminishing Mr. Obama's credibility." Rove also states that ,due to all the exposure, "his (the president's) magic disipates as he becomes less interesting.'

I realize that Mr. Rove was an advisor and deputy chief of staff to President Bush, so I know he is coming from a republican point of view. Even though I am a republican, I do believe his criticisms are accurate. President Obama seems to place too much value on his own celebrity. President Obama thinks that by going on almost every talk show, including David Letterman, he can charm people into supporting his ideas. President Obama is mainly trying to sell his idea for a new health care plain. His answers on the Sunday shows revealed weaknesses in his ideas and his over-exposure may have hurt his popularity. The fact that the polls show that his health care plan is losing public support and that he is becoming less popular indicates that maybe President Obama should spend less time in front of the camera and more time working toward solutions that will work. Republicans and democrats alike agree with this idea about President Obama not spending his time wisely. President Obama should focus more of his time coming up with new ideas for the health care plain in order to make it more agreeable across the nation.

Jimmy Carter Claims Racism Behind Joe Wilson's Comments

Stanton, Russ. “Opposition to Obama: It's not all black and white.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, September 17, 2009. Web. September 17, 2009 <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-race18-2009sep18,0,3539044.story>.

Read this article

On the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times, Russ Stanton addresses ex-president Jimmy Carter's comments about Joe Wilson. Senator Wilson is the man who yelled "You lie!" to President Obama during his recent speech. Jimmy Carter has said about Wilson's comment, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man..." and Carter went on to say that he thinks Wilson's outburst was rooted in racism. President Obama's response has been to say that he "does not believe that the criticism comes based on the color of his skin.' The Times editor acknowledges that the protests against Obama's policies are legitimate, but also says that Carter has a point. The editor says that Obama's opponents are not just enraged about his policies, but that they are also "upset by the seismic social change symbolized by an African-American president whose middle name happens to be Hussein." The editor goes on to say that any conservatives who deny that are obtuse.

I disagree. I know that there are some misguided fringe people who do not like the fact that our president is black, but I do not think that the huge majority of the protests against Obama's policies have anything to do with race. I was born and raised in the south and do not care at all about the color of the president's skin. It is totally irrelevant. I care only about the policies he wants to implement. As far as Joe Wilson's outburst is concerned, I do not believe that race had anything to do with it. Admittedly, I do not know what is in his heart as far as racial issues go, but I do know that he has claimed to have read Obama's proposed health care bill twice (all 1,000 pages of it) and that he says it does include health care subsidies for illegal immigrants. I believe that when he heard President Obama telling the American people that it did not contain any such subsidies, he was so overwhelmed with frustration at what he saw as a blatant lie that he yelled the now famous line, "You lie!". Whether it was appropriate or not, I wish it would stimulate discussion on the health care bill instead of on Jimmy Carter's accusation of racism.

Thoughts on Obama's Speech to Students

Green, Andy. “Obama Speech to Students.” The Baltimore Sun. The Baltimore Sun, September 8, 2009. Web. September 8, 2009 <http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/2009/09/obama_speech_to_students.html>.

Read this article

Andy Green is on the editorial board of the Baltimore Sun. In his September 8, 2009 editorial, he expressed his views about the controversy over President Obama’s speech to students. The speech was broadcast in schools throughout the country. Due to controversy, some schools chose not to show the speech and some parents kept their children from hearing it. Green believes that those who stirred up the controversy should feel “silly” but doubts that they do. He points out that President Obama’s speech actually had nothing controversial in it. The speech was a straightforward speech on the value of hard work and staying in school. Andy Green blames the controversy on two things. One, he says, is the “hysterical political fringe” element of society that believes that President Obama is out to “destroy traditional American values.” The other, he says, is the “cowardice of school officials who bow to pressure from extremists.” Andy Green sees no justification for the controversy in President Obama’s speech. He is obviously a very strong supporter of Obama and he says near the end of the article that he believes that Obama might be the greatest president there has ever been.

I do not agree with Andy Green that the controversy is “silly” but I also do not agree with the parents who kept their children from hearing the speech. It is appropriate for school children to hear the president speak, after all, he is the elected leader of our country and students should be taught to respect the office of the president. However, I do not agree with much of Obama’s political ideology and would not want him using schools as a platform to influence young people’s thinking on controversial issues. When parents heard that the speech was going to be one hour long and did not know what the specific content was going to be, I believe they were justified in wondering if the president might take advantages of his young and impressionable audience to slip in some of his political agenda. The fact that the original plan was to have students write an essay called “How I Can Help the President” created more uneasiness among parents. That plan was later changed. Much of the controversy probably could have been avoided if the transcript of the speech had been posted earlier than one day prior to the broadcast. Maybe people would have realized that it was an appropriate speech, and they would not have had such a negative reaction.

Values and Issues

My system of values is based on Christian principles including being truthful, respecting authority, and doing one’s best. One of the most important values in which I believe is loving and serving others. This has led me to spend a part of each summer for the past three years working with ministries to the homeless in Peru, Nicaragua, and New York. When faced with a controversial situation I first determine whether scripture says anything specific about the issue. For example, someone might say that it is all right to steal in certain situations because “the end justifies the means” but I am not swayed by this argument because scripture points out that stealing is wrong. I also value a strong work ethic that applies not only to my schoolwork but also to staying physically fit. My goal in life is to abide by these principles while pursuing my interests in sports, art, and relationships with family and friends. In politics I usually agree more with the Republican Party because of my belief in the sanctity of life and other conservative issues.

One of the most important and controversial issues in the news today is President Obama’s proposed health care plain. The plain is going to affect every American and many people are concerned about its content including the use of the “death book.” The “death book” contains a list of questions asked to disabled veterans to help them determine if their life is worth living. This is objectionable to me because I believe that veterans should not feel as if their lives are not worth living because they are not productive to society anymore. I believe all life is valuable whether it’s a disabled veterans, an unborn child, or an elderly person. Another current issue that is controversial is the “cash for clunkers” or the appliance rebate program. Some people question if this is a good use of taxpayers’ money or whether it has been measured well. Being a conservative, I believe in smaller government and lower taxes so I am concerned when large amounts of taxpayer money is spent.