Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Oh Goody! Jon Scott and Fox News Talking Heads Analyzing the MSM's Love for Obama

Reported by Julie - November 1, 2009 -

On Saturday (10/31/09) on Fox News Watch with Jon Scott, in a segment entitled “One Year Later: Is the press still in love with Obama?,” Scott hosted a “Fair and Balanced” panel consisting of Rich Lowry of the uber-conservative National Review, Judy Miller, a discredited journalist/writer and Fox News contributor, columnist Kristen Powers (as noted by News Hounds Ellen, a “Fox News Democrat”), and Jim Pinkerton, Fellow of the New America Foundation, to discuss whether the media (meaning, I presume, the mainstream media, which is not to be confused with “all right, all the time” Fox News) is still in love with President Obama. Surely they had Arianna Huffington, someone from MSNBC, or CNN, or CNBC, waiting in the wings . . . SMH (for acronym virgins, I just learned this one – “Shake My Head”). Just those four non-fans of President Obama, and Jon Scott, following the Fox News’ handbook. With video.

So let’s talk a little about this panel. As I previously posted when Fox News’ Eric Shawn had another “Fair and Balanced Panel” with Pinkerton, Powers and Miller (at least this time we were spared Andrea Tantaros), Jim Pinkerton, a Fellow of the New America Foundation, was a speaker at RightOnline’s conference, sponsored by none other than Americans for Prosperity (yes, the same organization who organized the town hall meeting revolts). I guess he’s, like, a self-described “media expert.” And Miller – well, this former Times reported who’s now just one more “analyst” for Fox News at one time went to jail to “protect a source” – which sounds pretty good and full of integrity and all that, except, as reported by the Huffington Post, Miller “didn't go to jail to preserve the integrity of journalism; she went to jail to protect Scooter Libby -- and her complicity in the Bush administration's successful selling of a bogus war, as well as the White House's desperate attempts to keep its misleading of the American people under wraps.” And Lowry – gee, he’s a glass-half-full kind of guy, having recently written an article in the Indiana, Pennsylvania Gazette (WTF?) on how the Republican Party can rise to power again.

Kicking it off, Lowry opined, “The gaga phase of the relationship is over . . . they’re still smitten with the guy although they’re wondering a little bit whether this relationship’s gonna end up where they want it to . . . .”

Scott wasted no time in criticizing President Obama on Afghanistan, saying, “One of the big issues . . . facing this President is Afghanistan, the war he described as ‘the war of necessity’ . . . on the campaign trail . . . now there seems to be months maybe of indecision at the WH . . . should the press be covering that?” Is it just me, or does Fox News not get the concept that this Administration isn’t wired to just run out and blow shit up, like President Obama’s predecessor did? Thoughtful, weighty decisions are the President’s trademark – as well they should be.

Miller noted that, “I think the press is trying as hard as it can, Jon, to find out what’s going on behind those closed doors . . . Obama seems to be setting the stage for, kind of, splitting the difference [commonly, in normal people speak, referred to as “compromise”] . . . you see the leaks that are indicating that that’s the way he’s going.”

Pinkerton rambled a bit, not only saying little noteworthy but little that was coherent, except it seemed he wanted to criticize SOMEBODY in the Obama Administration for SOMETHING.

Scott veered off into more fertile territory, saying, “Let’s talk about that trip to Dover Air Force Base – and I do not want to question the President’s motives at all . . . but what do you see as the useful purpose? Was it just for the education of President Obama?” Thanks for that little fair and balanced attempt, Jon – but can I point out that you can’t, in the world of fair and balanced, say you don’t want to question the President’s motives then, seconds later, question the President’s motives?

Token Democrat-who-really-isn’t, Kirsten Powers, rode the fence a little, but clearly implied that President Obama’s motives for going to Dover were not pure, saying: “I don’t think you can ever think with any politician that it’s ever just, you know, it’s not philanthropy, it’s always for themselves . . . he has a huge decision coming down the pike . . . and I think that they are sending messages through things that he’s doing.”

Scott said to Judy, “The military . . . is a dangerous place in peacetime, we lose a lot of soldiers through accidents and everything else . . . I sometimes wonder whether the President even gets the correct message when he’s there with 18 caskets coming home.”

Miller, finally getting to talk, said, “That is clearly a message that’s meant to say, war is bad, war is dangerous, people get killed, and I’m here demonstrating my personal solidarity . . . .” He’s the friggin’ Commander in Chief, lady – and we can bet our bottom dollar that had the President NOT gone to Dover Air Force Base you all would be sitting around jawing about THAT.

Regarding the upcoming gubernatorial elections, Scott floated the idea that “some” say they’re not reflective of the mood of the country.

Lowry disagreed – but went on to talk about how they may point to renewed Republican power. He noted that in Virginia, the Republican candidate is “gonna win a sweep,” and that people will think that because it’s a red state, Republicans win there – but he noted that President Obama won that race by 6 points and that there have been two Democratic governors in a row, so he kind of views it as an upset that’s a “big deal . . . in a weathervane that’s not gonna get the kind of attention it deserves.” Not if you keep writing about it in the Indiana, Pennsylvania, Gazette it isn’t.

Pinkerton took the Republicans-regaining-power baton from Lowry, and ran with it, saying, “If you go back to history . . . 1993 when the Republicans won the governorships in both Virginia and New Jersey and . . . followed up a year later with a huge sort of takeover of both Houses of Congress . . . I think the other race to mention though is New York 23 . . . there’s a real chance that the Tea Party candidate, a guy named Hoffman . . . could actually win that race . . . which would be seismic . . . for the Republican establishment.” Oh, right, the Tea Party candidate that Sarah Palin endorsed over the Republican candidate. Contrary to Pinkerton’s cheery as all hell outlook on it, as TPMMuckraker noted (before the Republican candidate, Scozzafava, dropped out), “Just think about the seriousness of the split in Republican ranks over this race -- the nominee for Vice President in last year's election is now rejecting the party's candidate in a Congressional race, where the divisions among the right are threatening to hand a GOP-held seat to the Democrats.” Well, there are Republicans and then there are Tea Party-Birther-Death Panel-Crazy as Batshit Republicans, which are the ones Sarah Palin no doubt most closely identifies with. If that Hoffman guy won, it would, in fact, be seismic for the Republican Party – a searing indictment that the Republicans are more and more identified with extremists -- but if memory serves, Sarah Palin and her particular brand of idealogy lost – big time – in 2008. And what wasn’t mentioned by any of the panelists was that, as reported by Philadelphia Inquirer, the special NY 23 election “was triggered when Obama picked Rep. John McHugh, one of only three Republicans among New York's 29 House members, to be secretary of the Army.”

Powers agreed that, “It is reflective of what’s going on in the country . . . particularly in the Republican Party where there seems to be a real lack of leadership . . . . This race really reflects how . . . if . . . a real conservative [meaning a Sarah Palin type conservative, such as Hoffman] is in the race that they can garner a lot of attention over the so-called Republican.”

Scott, as required by Fox News’ Standing Order, had to swipe at President Obama on as many topics as possible in one short segment, so he mentioned that healthcare is President Obama’s domestic priority, and said, “Here we are in the middle of this huge battle over it. Are the media as confused as everybody else . . . .?”

Lowry said that the media was “buying too much into the idea that this is inevitable,” and said that there is a very “interesting and shrewd effort” by the Democrats to “dishonestly, I think, get a top line number that plays well in the headlines, under a trillion dollars, supposedly paid for . . . to get that top of the line news treatment . . . .”

Pinkerton jumped in, saying, “As the NY Times was helpful to observe, it would seem that if they can’t run the swine flu program . . . they really ought to focus on trying to do a little thing before they try to do an enormous thing.”

Not only was this segment not really a discussion of the mainstream media’s “love affair” with President Obama, it was nails-in-the-coffin kind of evidence that Fox News hasn’t let the fact that the President of the United States hates its lousy guts distract from its agenda of Obama-bashing, Republican-loving, and Unfair and Unbalanced. Look, here’s an alleged "news" segment about the MSM, and there’s not one person on it (and no, I’m not counting Powers as a Dem here) who isn’t tucked cozily in bed with Fox and its right-wing, anti-Obama agenda. There’s not one “real” journalist on it. There’s only a gang of right-wing Fox groupies who follow the script.

SMH. SMH. SMH.