Obama ‘boycotting’ FOXNews, so Schock will fill in
President Obama will be making the rounds at the Sunday morning talk shows. He’ll be making a direct-to-the-public pitch for his ideas on health care reform to ABS, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN.
So which news network is missing? FOXNews.
And who did the conservative-leaning network get to “fill in”? Congressman Aaron Schock.
Schock spokesman Steve Shearer says that Schock will be on FOXNews at 11:05 A.M. Sunday. He will be interviewed live by satellite from Peoria. Schock will watch the president’s appearances, but otherwise will not prepare in advance of the questions, he added.
Schearer says is it unprecedented for a sitting president to make the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows. Administrations instead send cabinet secretaries and vice presidents to pitch administration policies because it wasn’t considered dignified for the president to do so.
Still, Schearer says that as long as the president is going to appear on the other networks, he should have added FOX to his schedule.
“Of course he’d get tougher questions. But he should relish being able to answer,” Schearer said, adding that Schock has make appearances on Chris Matthew’s program on MSNBC. Matthews is known to be tough on conservatives.
“He holds his own. The president ought to be able to do the same.”
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
Obama only wants to go to the networks that fawn over him. I bet Chris Matthews’ legs are tingling just thinking about Obama being on his network.
Perhaps President Obama wants to go only to real news stations rather than one claiming to be a news station. Fox News seems to focuses sole on their own agenda and aims only at a specific type of audience.
Oh sure, and the other networks don’t focus solely on their own agenda and aim only at a specific type of audience. Riiiight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m9Gbb6NSwM
One can only wonder what points Obama might score or lose by going into the Fox lion’s den. It would have been tempting. He was probably afraid Karl Rove would want to mud-wrestle him to decide the health-care reform debate.
At least on Meet the Press, Obama only got the first half, then the Republicans had the opportunity to refute the statements point by point. I don’t see FOX News doing the same. I don’t see it as undignified for the POTUS to appear on “News” shows, in fact, I always wondered why the POTUS allowed so many people to speak for him (hopefully, someday her).
Ramble On — You don’t think Fox News would let the President have half a news show and then allow the Republicans the other half to refute his statements point by point? I think they would. If the parties were reversed, however, it’s unlikely they would do it (i.e., allow a Democrat to refute a Republican president point by point).
Thanks Debbie for revealing your politics.
Agreed, Von. I thought she was one of the last of the good ones.
Anyone with any basic knowledge of journalism, reporting and facts knows how loose FoxNews is with the facts.
Not only that, they blatantly tell lies and keep on repeating them (recall after Obama’s speech to Congress Hannity said on the air that Obama said insurance execs were “bad” people – he never even said that and in fact said the exact opposit).
And the most disturbing items about this is how many factual errors are made on FoxNews, but also how little their people even care about it. It’s like they have no fact checkers at all.
Also, why should Obama go on FoxNews? The last time he did O’Reilly was rude in disrespectful to him.
Reading MediaMatters.org again, Scott?
Commentators will err and spin words when they have an agenda, just like Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, etc. But even worse is when news outlets like NBC/MSNBC, CBS, ABC and CNN fail to cover news that is harmful to their favorite president, until they’re forced to do so. Problem is, when they do finally provide coverage, they tend to defend the indefensible.
David,
I don’t care what web site, source or information you want to try and demonize because it does not fit inside your opinions or views. Magazines such as The American Journalism Review and the Columbia Journalism Review have pointed out the continuous errors by FoxNews and its reporters.
Other media outlets and organizations that study the media have also pointed out when it comes to errors in knowledge and facts, those who regularly view provide wrong answers more so than viewers of other outlets.
And it is especially laughable that you demonize other outlets who actually use documented evidence such as video and audio to make their point, while FoxNews does nothing more than allowing their people to try and prove their point by just opening their mouths.
Heck, look at the blond guy on FoxNews in the morning.
Sorry to break your FoxNews bubble, but do your research.
Scott,
It’s obvious your mind is made up, so I won’t try to change it. It’s also obvious that you’re incredibly naive. FNC has a “conservative attitude” but has plenty of commentators of all political stripes and party affiliation. If it comes across as “right-wing” it’s because the right is not ridiculed and dragged through the mud as they are on the networks and other 24-hour cable channels.
You’ve failed to cite any specifics on what American Journalism Review and Columbia Journalism Review say so that is irrelevant (and since I suspect these are left-leaning periodicals, what constitutes “continuous errors by FNC and its reporters” may in large part be a matter of opinion.)
At least Fox commentators don’t worship the Obama-messiah.
But sctobrien, you’re trying to debate with people that think that FauxNews isn’t the propaganda wing of the GOP. Right there you should see the argument is pointless. It’s like trying to argue with someone that says the dachshund in front of you is a cat. You’re both looking at the same dog, but they insist it’s a cat… how do you argue with that?
More to the point, why would you want to?
Both you and sctobrien are making excellent points. But, given the responses here, I have to agree with you. It is indeed pointless to argue with them. There’s no way to reason with them when they just keep repeating the mantras that’s been spoon-fed to them.
David,
Obviously it is pointless to discuss factual errors with you because you seem to be unable to distinguish between a factual error and a difference in political opinion.
And I seriously doubt you are willing to watch, read or listen to any sort of documented discovery of a factual error regarding FoxNews by simply discounting the discovery of such errors as simple political bias or leftist worship.
There have been too many organizations and outlets, regardless of political opinion, that have continued to have pointed out factual errors of FoxNews and its reporting. But hey, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by your obstinate positions when you have a person like Charles Grassley in your mix who is captured on video tape blabbing on about “death panels” and then lies about saying such a thing even though it was captured on video.
Scott,
Okay, “Mr. Above the Fray,” you’re the one singling out Fox News Channel for factual errors, while ignoring those made by other outlets like CNN, MSNBC and the Networks. It’s a double standard that destroys your credibility, especially when you refuse to offer specifics.
I can discern “fact” and “opinion.” There are some commentators on FNC that I respect, but for others I crank up the BS meter. You’d be surprised to learn the identity of some of them.
BTW, what happened to your blog?
David,
Again you convolute the debate by deflection and bringing in subjects beyond the original point.
When study after study shows those who regularly watch FoxNews are misinformed (i.e, that WMDs were found in Iraq, that Al Queda and Saddam were working together, that Medicare is not a government program – all of things larger numbers of Fox News watchers believe more so than those who watch other news channels), there is an obvious problem.
So back to the original point – why should Obama appear on a channel that is openly hostile and is error prone when it comes to its reporting?
SCOTT: “Again you convolute the debate by deflection and bringing in subjects beyond the original point.”
You could just admit you’re confused
SCOTT: “When study after study shows those who regularly watch FoxNews are misinformed (i. e, that WMDs were found in Iraq, that Al Queda and Saddam were working together, that Medicare is not a governmental program – all of things larger numbers of Fox News watchers believe more so than those who watch other news channels), there is an obvious problem.”
You’ve not specified whether these opinions are shaped by Fox News anchors, commentators, correspondents and/or guests. I’ve never heard the Medicare one, which I suspect is a liberal fabrication.
The problem is how you single out Fox News for factual errors, while dismissing more grevious violators of truth. Those who get their news from ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC/NBC believe Capitalism has failed, Dick Cheney leaked Valerie Plame’s identity, that all conservatives tie Saddam Hussein to 9-11, Sarah Palin (not Tina Fey) said she could see Russia from her house, etc. If you want a constant stream of misinformation, watch these channels all day long (and you would increase their viewership to three persons
SCOTT: “So back to the original point – why should Obama appear on a channel that is openly hostile and is error prone when it comes to its reporting?”
I’ll just have to turn the tables and ask why any Republican or conservative appear on any channel but Fox News? But in response to your question, Obama would get a fair shot with Chris Wallace, while a second interview with Bill O’Reilly wouldn’t hurt. And while he’s doing talk shows, he might as well do Shawn Hannity and Glenn Beck and demonstrate why they’re wrong. If Obama wants to avoid all but token tough questions, then he should appear on Meet the Press, but if he wants to earn respect from his critics, he should appear where he will get tough questions and show them he can handle it. He can reverse his declining poll numbers and keep his party from disaster in November 2010, but not by shying away from interviews that he knows won’t be reliable love fests.
Jordan,
I’m sorry…I’m done wasting time with folks like you.
You and Billy both keep having difficulty in separating a “fact” and a “political opinion.”
I have given you specific examples of errors of fact. I’m not discussing “political opinions” or biases.
Go to any of the available websites out there dealing with fact checking and do a basic examination. Until then, I’m done wasting my time with people who can’t stay on the point and blend points to try and make an illogical point.
By the way, try picking up a law book or statute book and then you might learn why what Dick Armitage did was not the leak of Valerie Plame’s name and why Cheney was the guilty party.
OK: I’ll weigh in here:
1. President Obama has every right to pick and choose which network news shows he will appear (assuming they want to have him).
2. Yes, yes, yes. Reporters are biased. Good objective reporters substitute those biases for a process that encourages fairness in questioning, presentation and questioning. Quite often this process fails — at CNN, CBS, NBC,ABS, Fox, the Peoria Journal Star, Washington Post, New York Times — shall I continue?
3. David Jordan is right when he said CNN and the like are not as fair and objective as they claim to be. I also find FOX’s claim to be “fair and balanced” to be especially ludicrous, considering the amount of partisan political commentary that is passed as as original reporting.
But there ain’t no one pure in network TV. Just ain’t.
Still I would have liked the American President to have the balls to confront FOX in it’s own lair.
Billy,
Check your research – in the recent past Obama has been interviewed by both O’Reilly and Chris Wallace. And both times Obama was not treated to respectfully and not in ways Bush was ever treated by these two.
So why should a person show up at a place that is obviously unfriendly.
By the way, I never saw Bush on Olbermann’s show or Bill Moyer’s show…so what does that tell you?
SCOTT: “By the way, try picking up a law book or statute book and then you might learn why what Dick Armitage did was not the leak of Valerie Plame’s name and why Cheney was the guilty party.”
That’s “political opinion,” O’Brien…