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.