Fox News: Attacked

In his weekly address, Obama spoke of “one cable news station” in particular, who was, and I am risking a paraphrase here, lying. There’s a lot of talk lately about the Obama Administration taking on Fox News or, maybe more accurately, talking back. This has been spurred by Obama’s address, as well as a comment by Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Director, where she called Fox News a “wing of the Republican Party.”

The real Fox

The trouble with politics is the politics. Politics isn’t about facts, issues, or really even opinions. It’s about points. It’s strategy in a game who’s rules changed based on mood and mass temperament.

At the base of things, Obama “talking back,” seems totally fair. He’s trying to show people what he believes are the facts of the case (the healthcare case, the economic case, etc). He believes that one News Agency is skewing the facts, at best, and lying at worst. This, he believes, confuses people, takes away from the facts and the validity of his arguments. So he’s calling them on it.

The trouble with calling someone on something is that, unless you can deliver a swift blow of unquestionable reason and certainty, the other side get’s elevated, even if for a moment, and looked at. It gains respect merely by being examined. So now, it’s Fox’s view vs Obama’s.

Calling someone on something, in this direct manner, now makes it a focus. The focus is, potentially, more on the argument, then on the propositions and conclusions of the argument. It’s more about the drama, the strategy, the moves, then on the truth. Again, that’s politics.

Worst of all, it draws a line in the sand. People really like acknowledging lines in sand. It gives them perspective, let’s them know which direction to face, shows them where they are going. It’s much easier to choose a side then weigh an issue.

In one report on “FOX VS OBAMA” I saw three comments, two for Obama, calling Fox, and Beck in particular, and idiot. The middle comment was against, saying things like, “The present administration is the most corrupt in my lifetime,” and talking about how his agenda, and note the language here, intendedto bankrupt America, etc…(admittedly, I don’t agree with these two propositions, and I’ve shown my own bias.)

I suppose what I might ask, of our President, is what he thought about the intellect of the average American. Is there a way to present an issue based on facts alone, without being pulled in to line drawing? Line drawing is, I’m afraid, automatic, it seems. So I guess the real question is, how does somebody get people to look at the facts of something and decided for themselves?

Of course, facts are skewed by values, and values skewed further by facts, in a positive-feedback that reminds me of a good night on the town. So there must be something behind it all. There must be a way for people to see reason. Any ideas?