Obama Vs. Fox News: A First Amendment Trial Balloon

With wars raging in Afghanistan and Iraq, political unrest in Honduras, and Iran and North Korea quickly becoming nuclear threats, the White house has decided to wage a new war at home against a rather odd enemy: Fox News. Over the last few weeks Administration officials have made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows to attack Fox as being a partisan organization that only presents a conservative point of view. To me, this is both laughable and alarming.

It's laughable when one considers NBC and its cable daughters, MSNBC and CNBC. If ever there existed a news outlet that departed from unbiased news in favor of carrying the government water, it's these three. It started way back during the campaign when NBC reporter Brian Williams admitted on Jan. 20, 2008 it was difficult to cover Mr. Obama objectively. The lack of objectivity continued right through the election and inauguration and is still going strong today. From selling Barack Obama dolls, coins, and collectibles in its on-line store, to refusing to air commercials critical of health care reform, NBC clearly and unashamedly has left responsible journalism on the garbage heap of the past.

MSNBC fan-boy Chris Matthews, who doesn't even appear to know the definition of hardball, is especially offensive to those who believe in responsible journalism. Every time Obama is mentioned on his show Matthews acts like a young school girl in love, pining away over his beloved Barack Obama.

It's also laughable if you consider ABC's extended health care infomercial last June, during which they promised tough questions and an open debate with the President. Tough questions and an open debate? Give me a break. I read the transcript. It was carefully planned and choreographed to allow Obama to shine as brightly as possible.

Count CNN, CBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and hundreds of other news outlets among those in the bag for the Administration and then ask, "Why is the White House so consumed with Fox News?"

The answer is three-fold: Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity. Fox News is consistently among the most watched news network in the world, and their three heavy hitters are one of the biggest reasons why. The Obama camp cannot tolerate those who disagree with them, especially if those people have a public voice and a lot of followers. It was demonstrated this past spring and summer when the White House used the mainstream media to launch an all out offensive against radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. That attack failed, though the Obama thugs are still holding out hopes of winning, so now the attack is being re-directed at Fox.

The alarming thing about this whole issue is the extent to which the White House will go in order to stifle dissent. This attack on Fox news may seem to be a small matter, but I suggest there's a lot more to it than meets the eye. With Obama and company nothing is done accidentally; nothing is done that could potentially harm Obama in a manner that is irreparable. In this case it seems the White House is heading somewhere specific. But where?

Earlier this year a few Democrats in Congress started talking about reviving the so-called "fairness doctrine"; an old government regulation used by liberals to control public airwaves which was terminated under the Reagan Administration. Reviving this unconstitutional regulation was seen as a way to get Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reilly off the air by forcing broadcasters to offer equal time. The effort failed when Democrats realized bringing it back would be political suicide. But....

....they don't quit so easily.

In early summer the conversation shifted to using the FCC and its regulatory power to accomplish the same thing without Congress having to be directly involved. Rather than legislate against free speech, Congress intends to have the FCC claim broadcasters are using the airwaves irresponsibly and not for the common good, then regulate the content of all non-news programming.

Did you notice I specifically said "non-news programming?" Have you figured out where this whole Fox News thing might be going?

It should be plainly apparent to anyone who's paying attention that Barack Obama and his advisors are Jedi Masters in the use of trial-balloon politics. Whenever they want to make a move that might upset voters, they do a small-scale test run. If it fails they back pedal and claim they were never going to do what we ignorant voters thought they were. If the trial is successful they go for it full throttle.

In the case of Fox News, I'm willing to bet they are floating a trial balloon to see if they can get the public to agree Fox News is not a legitimate news outlet. If they attack Fox as editorial and opinion rather than hard news, and the public seems to agree, they have laid the groundwork for using the FCC to shut them up. To the credit of Fox News they are not backing down one inch. Mike Wallace, who started the argument by deciding to fact-check an Obama official who appeared on his show, stands firm in his position that a journalist is supposed to report the truth. The White House never complained about the facts Wallace checked, or the proof he offered of Administration lies, they simply were angry that he fact-checked them at all. I agree with Wallace; isn't that the job of a news outlet?

It's long been understood that one of the purposes of the press is to hold government accountable by reporting its activity to the general populace. Our forefathers believed this and codified it in the Constitution's first amendment. Yet in Obama's Utopia the press is a tool to promote him and his agenda. Anyone who disagrees and dares to voice opposition must be destroyed. It might be that the attack on Fox News is a precursor of things to come.