UPDATED
If the Rupert Murdoch story in Vanity Fair(Tuesdays with Rupert) is accurate, one reason for Fox News’ bias against Obama during the campaign — apart from the fact that the news channel is a mouthpiece for right-wing ideology and politicians — is that Roger Ailes, the head of the operation, was in a snit because Obama recognized the bias and wouldn’t grant interviews. From the article:
Obama lit into Ailes. He said that he didn’t want to waste his time talking to Ailes if Fox was just going to continue to abuse him and his wife, that Fox had relentlessly portrayed him as suspicious, foreign, fearsome—just short of a terrorist.
Ailes, unruffled, said it might not have been this way if Obama had more willingly come on the air instead of so often giving Fox the back of his hand.
A tentative truce, which may or may not have vast historical significance, was at that moment agreed upon.
This shows — again, assuming its truth — Fox as not just ideologically skewed, but as a channel willing to trash a potential president because he wouldn’t help bring in viewers, and willing to say so. Wow.
But another question: What does it say about Obama that he’d cut such a deal, agreeing to be interviewed in return for getting less sleazy coverage? Practical, sure. Cynical, too.
If he hoped for better treatment, it’s not obvious that his deal worked, of course. Fox continues to be reliably right-wing.
Update: Fox is denying this. Quoted in today’s Washington Post, Ailes claims he told Obama: “Senator, you’re the one who boycotted us… We’re not the ones who boycotted you. Nor did we retaliate for your boycott.”
on Sep 3rd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Umm, is this news? I thought this was par for the course. I always assumed that there was always some implicit agreement with the press. If you’re friendly with the press, they treat you favorably (cf. John McCain).