Obama Campaign Escalates Fox Attack at Debate

It was quick, but Barack Obama ramped up his battle with Fox News during the final presidential debate.

Responding to the false charge that he backed tax hikes for people making under $50,000, Obama cited news reports rebutting the charge. "Even Fox News disputes it," he said, "and that doesn't happen very often when it comes to accusations about me." Voters are used to Republican politicians hammering the press, but such a pointed reference is unusual for top Democrats – and remarkable for the non-combative Obama. The line, delivered during the last major televised event of the campaign, is part of a broader strategy to confront Fox News, said an Obama aide after the debate.

Standing beneath a dark blue campaign sign in the "spin room" at the Hofstra gym, Obama communications director Dan Pfeiffer said the campaign had determined that Fox was a "powerful infrastructure whose goal is to drive a cultural schism in America." Pointing to the channel's "calculated" efforts to "push issues like ACORN and Bill Ayers," Pfeiffer said the campaign will confront "anyone who seeks to advance a false argument about Obama." Some reporters at Fox are "fair and admirable," he added, but "they're the exception rather than the rule."

A few steps away, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds was incredulous when I relayed Pfeiffer's take. "For Barack Obama to complain about media coverage is like a fish complaining about water," he said, "it's absurd." Bounds, who appears on all the cable channels for the campaign, also pointed to "independent studies" that indicate Obama actually receives better coverage. Complaints about Obama's press coverage, Bounds continued, were just a distraction from Obama's record. The real fight is "not between Obama and Fox news," he said, "but between Obama and the truth."

The Obama campaign also pointed to Obama's criticism of Fox News in the forthcoming issue of the New York Times Sunday magazine. "I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls," Obama told reporter Matt Bai. "If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn't vote for me, right? Because the way I'm portrayed 24/7 is as a freak!... there is an entire industry now, an entire apparatus, designed to perpetuate this cultural schism, and it's powerful," he added. Pfeiffer hit on the exact same "cultural schism" point in our exchange.

Meanwhile, his colleagues in the campaign press shop, Bill Burton and Robert Gibbs, recently hammered Fox in combative guest appearances, with Gibbs famously confronting Sean Hannity for giving a platform to a guest with a history of anti-Semitism. Campaign Manager David Plouffe took another shot at Fox for stoking stories about ACORN. "We understand that Fox News Channel is turning themselves into the 24-hour ACORN channel," he told reporters this week. Campaign surrogates have also gotten in on the act. Sen. Sherrod Brown has tweaked Fox at recent Ohio rallies for Obama, drawing boos from excited supporters.

Fox's conservative links are well known, from former Republican operative Roger Ailes running the show to a fleet of conservative advocates like Bill O'Reilly. The channel insists its anchors are fair and balanced, but even Fox's "news" reporting on Obama has drawn fire, from airing a false story about his early education to devoting extensive time to old allegations about Ayers – long before they were raised by the McCain campaign.

According to one person who has worked at Fox News, many objective people work at the channel, but the larger system has political and journalistic flaws. "There is an interest [at Fox] in stories that are more problematic for Democrats, first and foremost," said the source. "Then they get through the system because there's not a central system that checks any facts. There's just not."

Fox News has long faced charges of bias from liberal critics, of course, including organized attacks from coalitions of bloggers, the progressive group Brave New Films, and the civil rights organization ColorofChange. One effort even scuttled Fox's attempt to host Democratic primary debates last year. Yet the channel has never faced a sustained assault by a major presidential campaign -- delivered by prominent surrogates, pressed in direct confrontations on Fox's own airwaves, and personally advanced by the nominee himself. Maybe in an Obama White House, the terms of "fair and balanced" will get renegotiated.

Comments (34)

1. Obama could avoid the tax cut issue if he'd just give us a number.

   I want him to be the CHANGE candidate but he talks in circles just like every other politician.

   Instead of this:

   "I'll cut taxes for working families."

   Why can't he just say this:

   "If your taxable income is below $_______ you will get a tax cut."

   Wouldn't such straight talk be a breath of fresh air?

   I HOPE he CHANGES and stops the ambiguouity.

   Posted by bleedingheart at 10/16/2008 @ 12:50am

2. bleeding heart-----the Obama-Biden website barackobama.com has a tax calculator that will tell you what type of tax cut you would get under their plan. Have you been to the site? It is well-designed with plenty of information about all their positions. If you aren't aware of this feature of their website then I don't think you have fully researched them and shouldn't charge them with being ambiguous.

   Posted by frski34 at 10/16/2008 @ 01:00am

3. bleadingheart; another cool site:

   http://ObamaTaxCut.com

   You can calculate the amount for yourself.

   Posted by BJWA at 10/16/2008 @ 01:07am

4. Bleeder's a neocon shill. Run his history, you'll see. Poser.

   1 : one who acts as a decoy

   2 : a person who poses

   = b l e e d e r

   Posted by winyahn at 10/16/2008 @ 01:20am

5. RE: Well, Big Mc should not have stooped to that level where Obama could and did. What else does Obama know, besides character assasination?

   --------

   Debate is full of attacks John McCain and Barack Obama have many tense moments and harsh words for each other. » Get personal

   Highlights Warped facts from both Ohio plumber becomes focal point

   Posted by HelenDAO at 10/16/2008 @ 02:26am

6. "I'll cut taxes for working families."

   Why can't he just say this:

   "If your taxable income is below $_______ you will get a tax cut."

   Wouldn't such straight talk be a breath of fresh air?

   I HOPE he CHANGES and stops the ambiguouity.

   Posted by bleedingheart at 10/16/2008 @ 12:50am

   Are you even paying attention?

   I thought not.

   Obama has stated repeatedly and categorically that if your income is below $250k, your taxes will be cut.

   Between $250-500k, the average increase is $11.00.

   Perhaps a little independent reading next time?

   Posted by skeletonman at 10/16/2008 @ 07:07am

7. Concerning your last line "Maybe in an Obama White House, the terms of "fair and balanced" will get renegotiated." Exactly what are you suggesting? How do you change the bias of Fox News (or The Nation, for that matter) without running afoul of the 1st Amendment?

   Posted by amend1 at 10/16/2008 @ 08:28am

8. BJW, frsk....bleeding is a Republican posing as a Naderite.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/16/2008 @ 09:05am

9. On-topic, this would be a hoot.

   Like the "inevitable" Hillary, Obama taking on Fox might be a match-up that he could win. All it would take is linking Fox (like linking McCain) to George W. Bush and the Republican brand.

   Wouldn't hurt their ratings (plenty of LVLIBs, PONTIs, SJCHERs out there who know "anything they hear outside of Fox is liberal lies")....but their general credibility would go lower than it already has and the public perception of Fox as simply the propaganda wing of the GOP would increase.

   The question would be...would a reporter want FNC on their resume' for a move to another network????

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/16/2008 @ 09:09am

10. Posted by amend1 at 10/16/2008 @ 08:28am

    Well, for one, you could revoke broadcasting licenses. Fox may have the constitutional right to free speech, but they do not have the "right" to publicly owned airwaves.

    I'm personally not in favor of such a move, only wanted to indicated that moves like this one are possible. And just knowing that someone can impact your business can influence coverage.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/16/2008 @ 09:14am

11. Hell, all Obama needs to do is refuse to allow Fox into his press corps. No access, no story,not much to say on the news except to complain about how mean Obama is. Turnabout is fair play...though something tells me that this won't be Barack's approach.

    Posted by Tobin Davis at 10/16/2008 @ 09:27am

12. Posted by Tobin Davis at 10/16/2008 @ 09:27am

    Actually, I think what you'd see is Major Garrett, their WH correspondent, not toeing the Fox party line as much.

    Like the non-pundits over there, he MIGHT want to take a job at CNN, ABC, etc. someday...and he'd like to have a "clean" resume.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/16/2008 @ 09:32am

13. hey srj,

    isn't that what hugo did?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/16/2008 @ 09:35am

14. Fox is a non-threat. All they do is pander to the lowest common denominator. Anyone who listens to their broadcasts and actually believes they are "fair and balanced" is not going to ever vote Democrat anyway. All they want is a news source that tells them what they think and never challenge their narrow world view.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/16/2008 @ 09:45am

15. Posted by madlib at 10/16/2008 @ 09:26am

    The question was: "How do you change the bias of Fox News (or The Nation, for that matter) without running afoul of the 1st Amendment?"

    My answer was you find a way to impact their bottom line. Revoking licenses or more subtle moves like giving preferential treatment on the sly to competitors - like the Bush administration has done with Fox - are one of many ways you impact coverage.

    Herman's propaganda model covers this issue in detail. Obama can use flak (like suggesting that their negative coverage is helping the terrorists), the government public relations apparatus, lean on corporations doing advertising with them via regulations, etc.

    I'm not saying it ought to be the case. I'm saying that it is possible, and the mere possibility changes coverage - just as the propaganda model suggests.

    You are right on one point, Fox isn't the only media corporation to have to worry. They all do.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/16/2008 @ 10:41am

16. Posted by madlib at 10/16/2008 @ 09:58am

    Otherwise known as the Streisand effect. But then again, that only applies when you are trying to censor - not influence subtly. So revoking licenses in response to something specific might trip that off, but an bipartisian committee that suggests changing licenses in the public interest? That might fly.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/16/2008 @ 10:44am

17. BTW, Fox News' ONLINE poll?

    Shows McCain won the debate!

    Now we just need to throw out ALL those dozens of others (that don't happen to be "online polls") that say the opposite!

    heheh

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/16/2008 @ 11:03am

18. Posted by frosty zoom at 10/16/2008 @ 09:35am

    You raise an interesting point. Venezuela is often used as the poster child for censorship these days, but take a look at the arguments laid out in this link:

    http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/15255

    There are similarities, Fox has access to a whole host of media beyond broadcast media. But there are also differences like questions of whether RCTV supported a coup.

    I found this line particularly interesting:

    "With regard to diversification and democratization, the Chavez government has arguably done more than any government in Venezuelan history or in the history of most countries of the world. Enabling hundreds of community radio stations and of dozens of community television stations gives ordinary citizens access to the media in an unprecedented manner."

    Now, imagine the U.S. President had a media democratization mandate in the United States. Revoking corporate broadcast licenses would be necessary to make room for them. But, invariably, such a move would lead to claims that government was "censoring" Fox, CNN, or what have you - who are all owned by a handful of media companies.

    I think a legitimate question is: Who is being censored under the status quo? In an ideal democracy, how would media be managed? And how is that different than the way it is managed now? Who has less "share of voice" as a result?

    For some ideas on how to answer these questions, you could do worse than picking up practically any book by Robert McChesney.

    And when finished, you may decide that despite the authoritarian nature of the Chavez government, the censorship going on there is nothing compared to the censorship in our media - as demonstrated by the lack of any critical discussion of Iraq before the war.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/16/2008 @ 11:12am

19. "Are you even paying attention?

    I thought not.

    Obama has stated repeatedly and categorically that if your income is below $250k, your taxes will be cut.

    Between $250-500k, the average increase is $11.00.

    Perhaps a little independent reading next time?"

    So why not just say it? It's almost like Obama thinks if it's on his website, the tax calculator can be taken down and everyone will forget it was there. But if he says it, well remember Herbert Walker?

    Last year Obama was getting us out of Iraq. This year Obama is not.

    This year Obama may be promising tax cuts. Next year...........

    Posted by bleedingheart at 10/16/2008 @ 11:40am

20. bleeding, why is it that a "Naderite" such as yourself...

    almost never criticizes John McCain???

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/16/2008 @ 11:55am

21. Ari,

    I don't think Obama was really trying to "escalate" attacks on Fox, he was merely pointing out that even the "conservative station -FOX" disagreed with McCain's attack ads that falsely claimed that Middle Class taxpayers would see tax increases under Obama's plan.

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/16/2008 @ 1:01pm

22. "So why not just say it?"

    Posted by bleedingheart at 10/16/2008 @ 11:40am

    Are you high? He says it in almost every campaign commercial, in every stump speech, and repeatedly in each debate. I myself have heard him personally say it about 200 times, and I tend to tune out politics.

    So, tell us about the BioSphere.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 10/16/2008 @ 1:15pm

23. Where have you been??

    http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

    Posted by throwin at 10/16/2008 @ 1:19pm

24. I don't think Obama was really trying to "escalate" attacks on Fox, he was merely pointing out that even the "conservative station -FOX" disagreed with McCain's attack ads that falsely claimed that Middle Class taxpayers would see tax increases under Obama's plan. Posted by Metteyya at 10/16/2008 @ 1:01pm

    That may be, but it was a good, direct jab nonetheless!

    Posted by jackwells at 10/16/2008 @ 1:22pm

25. Posted by bleedingheart at 10/16/2008 @ 11:40am

    Are you high?

    Posted by BlueSpark at 10/16/2008 @ 1:15pm

    No...he's a Republican.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/16/2008 @ 2:21pm

26. Perhaps being attacked in the press could help Obama. Remember what the Dan Rather-CBS News scandal did for Bush in the last election?

    Posted by Mistral at 10/16/2008 @ 2:27pm

27. -------------Barack Obama is a cry baby.------------------

    The entire mainstream media plus public radio and television are obviously in the tank for Obama.

    If not for FOX NEWS nobody would say BOO to Obmama.

    But the SPECIAL ONE insists on a perfectly empty playing field just for himself.

    -------------------What a coward-------------------------------

    Posted by grademan at 10/16/2008 @ 2:39pm

28. Cry baby? Who the hell has been crying about how unfair the "liberal media" is? This is hilarious...Mr Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.

    Posted by Balrog at 10/16/2008 @ 2:46pm

29. Damn, forgot to mention Pelosi. Just trying to inject a little humor here Pogge, you motherfucker. Sometimes sarcasm doesn't go over well in text Pogge, you cocksucker. Next time Pogge, you asswipe, I'll mention the sarcasm filter. Posted by bleedingheart at 10/05/2008 @ 11:14pm

    More of BH's uncivility, lack of debating prowess, and willingness to be a part of the continuing problem in America.

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 10/16/2008 @ 2:59pm

30. As Stephen Colbert says, Fox isn't interested in facts, they're interested in "the truth." THEIR TRUTH. People who swear by Fox just like to hear talking heads say what they're already thinking. It validates their narrow-mindedness. There's no changing their minds because it is an ingrained world view. I did enjoy hearing Obama call them out, though! Who's afraid of Big Bad FOX??

    Posted by jillers at 10/16/2008 @ 3:30pm

31. Isn't it interesting how news reporters always seem unable to idenfity ACORN as a left-wing organization funded by Barack Obama to the tune of $800,000?

    "Officials: FBI investigates ACORN for voter fraud October 16, 2008 - 2:46pm By LARA JAKES JORDAN Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) - The FBI is investigating whether the community activist group ACORN helped foster voter registration fraud around the nation before the presidential election.

    A senior law enforcement official confirmed the investigation to The Associated Press. A second senior law enforcement official says the FBI was looking at results of inquiries in several states, including a raid on ACORN's office in Las Vegas, for any evidence of a coordinated national effort.

    Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Justice Department regulations forbid discussing ongoing investigations particularly so close to an election.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/16/2008 @ 4:36pm

32. Oh wait....I guess there is ONE news organization that IS capable of fully and accurately reporting Obama's connection to ACORN. Anybody want to guess which one?

    Obama and ACORN: Relationship May Be More Extensive Than Candidate Says WASHINGTON: Barack Obama says he only had limited ties to ACORN, and they began in 1995. But other encounters with the group, plus a voter-registration drive he conducted called Project Vote three years earlier, calls his account into question.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/16/2008 @ 4:59pm

33. Wow, so an organization that Obama has funded to the tune of $800,000 is being investigated for perpetrating massive voter fraud across the nation? Isn't that, you know, illegal?

    Posted by pontificus at 10/16/2008 @ 5:25pm

34. Ponti-No.It is not illegal for the FBI to investigate something and they do it all the time.It's what we pay them for.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/16/2008 @ 6:47pm