3/21/09 11:50 PM

Netroots Nostradamuses

The Big Interview is now history and the reviews are in: a "friendly exchange" that Sen Obama handled "deftly" and artfully. Chris Wallace was "civil" and the post-game analysis "surprisingly moderate".

How can this be? Just yesterday the Fox haters and blue blog prognosticators were convinced that the sky was falling. Just stepping into the evil lair of Fox News would be the greatest political catastrophe since Nixon refused make-up. For your reading enjoyment, some of our favorite bits of problematic prescience:

  • Obama should better be ready for the gotchas coming a mile a minute.  He better have quick sound bite answers, becuase [sic] you know Chris Wallace is going to ask another gotcha question before he lets Obama answer the last gotcha question. [Kos]
  • Fox is interested in only one thing: taking down Obama, and they will literally stoop to anything to do it. Obama is nuts if he thinks he's going to get fair or impartial questions. All Fox needs is one line, one questionable syllable, and they will be talking about it and looping it for weeks. [TPM]
  • FOX will distort this segment just like any other segment in reference to Obama. Murdough met with Bill Clinton prior to the outlandish "clips" aired about Rev. Wright. FOX will clip this interview as well. [TPM]
  • This is nothing but a trap. [NewsCorpse]
  • It smacks of capitulation and that's how they will spin it. [Kos]
  • Obama's going to answer the bully. [Kos]
  • It will be a hit job. They’ll pull out some crap he did in the 4th grade or something. [C&L]
  • Fox has complete control over what viewers will see, and they'll edit it to make it into hit job on Obama regardless of what he says.... It makes no sense to expect that a Republican propaganda outlet will somehow produce something that helps Obama. [TPM]
  • No matter what he says or does, there will be negative spin from it. [Kos]
  • It's [sic] viewers will become even more convinced that Fox is fair and balanced, and come the GE when Fox is running the 10-second clip of Rev. Write [sic] nonstop, Americans, on a whole, will get dumber. That's the big picture, net consequence of this appearance by Obama on Fox -- that it's going further [sic] dumb down America. [Kos]
  • This is gonna make the ABC debate look like a tea party. [C&L]
  • He'll probably rip Wallace a new one and make him look stupid. [Kos]
  • His responses will be cut up and edited and used against him in a million ways. [HuffPo]
  • He goes on fox, makes a stand against the [expletive deleted] foxnews, looks like a democratic fighter, and doesn't have to attack hillary to do so. [TPM]
  • Prepare to be sand-bagged. [C&L]
  • I hope by, "take Fox on," they mean, "beat Chris Wallace around the head and neck with a sock full of ball bearings," but that's probably too much to hope for. [TPM]
  • So wqho [sic] wants to bet that Wallace's first question(s) will be about why Obama hasn't appeared on Fox in so long? [TAP]
  • He’s walking into a trap and Wallace will try to sandbag him. [C&L]
  • The "questions" will be long narrative "opening statements" such as: "Sen. Obama, you have courted domestic terrorists like William Ayers for their political support. Ayers, of course, bombed American government builings, never repented, and on 9/11 said that the bombings did not go far enough. When questioned about Ayers in the last debate, you were very defensive and did not, in the eyes of many, renounce Ayers. In fact, you appeared to defend him by suggesting he was just a benign "English professor." Senator, do you regret your association with this domestic terrorist?" By asking this kind of loaded question, the answer is almost irrelevant. [TPM]
  • Viewers will see it only after Fox gets done editing it into a smear job. [TPM]
  • I'm sure Karl Rove at Fox News, will be burning up the Blackberry with zingers to Chris Wallace to get Barack Obama tripped up and agitated so as to get a sound bite to play over and over. [TPM]
  • My guess, they go over the top on Rev Wright, and Obama has an answer ready. [TAP]
  • Fox will spend the entire time focusing on the "manufactured issues" of the campaign — flag pins, "bitter"-gate, Weathermen, etc. Obama's going to get punched. [MoJo]

These are people who probably haven't actually WATCHED Fox in their lives, so its hardly surprising that they wouldn't have a clue what they are talking about.
April 27, 2008, 6:45:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox is so lame duck now. Bland interview. It did not live up to the hype. Maybe they should have used props . They should have used helium balloons and then they would have their voices sound funny.
April 27, 2008, 6:54:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Vince P
It's a political interview with a boring monotonius candidate and a monotonious interviewer.
What does one expect?
April 27, 2008, 6:57:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
I agree, tess. They should have worn clown suits too, but that would have disenfranchised the Obama supporters who (like I do) suffer from coulrophobia.
April 27, 2008, 7:19:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply

It'd be nice if they had the same anger and hatred towards terrorists that they have for their fellow citizens.
April 27, 2008, 7:36:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Juvenile behavior, funny voices and name-calling on a show?
That's Olbermann's program.
April 27, 2008, 7:49:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Can anyone make any sense of this bit of gibberish?
"FOX will distort this segment just like any other segment in reference to Obama. Murdough met with Bill Clinton prior to the outlandish "clips" aired about Rev. Wright. FOX will clip this interview as well. [TPM] "
April 27, 2008, 7:52:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Yeah, maybe it should have been Barack Obama Puppet Theater, with Olby and The Laughing Stagehand providing the voices.
April 27, 2008, 7:53:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I often TRY to make the point with my lefty-lib friends that I almost cannot avoid watching "news" shows that they think are great. Then they proudly tell me that they NEVER watch Fox, listen to Rush, etc.
Then they go on to explain to me how I live in an echo chamber, while they are tolerant of diverse views.
Then they ask me what I mean by mimicking the Twilight Zone theme...
April 27, 2008, 7:58:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike Chimeri
And while all that prognosticating was going on, I was in Connecticut watching a concert and also having a life. I'd love to hear Angry Rich and Christine from John Gibson's show read those comments.  
April 27, 2008, 8:27:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply

As you can see, sanity is not a hallmark of blue bloggers and their readers.
April 27, 2008, 9:05:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply

On the Mark
At the risk of being labeled insane, by those so inclined to labelling, I gather the Obama interview was not well-regarded by the Fox set. I suppose that is not all that surprising since its relative fairness and balance made me view it as adequate, perhaps slightly more than adequate. However, fariness and balance in this election cycle, to date, is: ignoring and excusing everything McCain says and does; praising and adoring Obama; or praising and adoring Clinton. In other words, for the Republicans, this has been a pass, for the Democrats, a pre-game pep rally for a classical and evenly matched rivalry. Anything less is boring. Wallace rose above himself and his network during the interview, and he met the threshold of journalistc integrity, remarkably low, for this campaign. He deserves credit. But, I take it anything less than a Hannity whining endlessly about Rev. Wright is boring for many FNC fans. I suspect the FNC fans who are interested in journalistic integrity, however, see this is evidence of FNC's legitimacy, as they should.
I would encourage the Fox fans in grief and mourning to remember that News Sunday has far broader coverage than the typical FNC program, airing as it does on on Fox broadcast as well. Wallace probably plays better for this broader audience than Hannity would.
As I said in an earlier post, this was a net win for FNC and Obama.
Now, back to the snakepit of the blue blogs where each and every poster lacks the reason and clarity of even the simplest, crudest most unbalanced of the posters who flitter around the clear and reasonable red blogs, gracing us from time-to-time with their wisdom.
April 27, 2008, 11:33:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply

And now the frothing hysterical types can claim that their prior prognostication forced FOX to be more civil with Obama.
April 27, 2008, 11:48:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Now, back to the snakepit of the blue blogs where each and every poster lacks the reason and clarity of even the simplest, crudest most unbalanced of the posters who flitter around the clear and reasonable red blogs, gracing us from time-to-time with their wisdom.
On the Mark | 04.27.08 - 11:38 pm |  
Roger that, Kip King...
April 28, 2008, 12:01:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Mark @ News Corpse
For the record, I was right!
April 28, 2008, 3:45:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike the Corpse, I thionk you may have gotten this wrong:
"the audience is limited in both size and ideological diversity."
Fox News Sunday is originally broadcast on the network Fox channel and is then rebroadcast on the much more limited Fox Cable News. My guess is that combining the two generates fairly substantial audience.
It is true that I haven't seen much today of the interview other than it was a respectful interview and Obama didn't offer any bomb shells.
I have seen quite a bit more of Wright.
Could that be b/c Wright is out there, a la Shuster, pimping himself to anyone and everyone with a camera?
April 28, 2008, 5:39:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I don't know where Mr Corpse gets his facts from, but surveys do not show "limited ideological diversity". Politico reported:
In fact, according to a study by Mediamark Research, only 38 percent of Fox News viewers self-identified as conservative. In terms of sheer numbers, that means the non-conservative audience for Fox tops CNN’s total viewership.
Yeah, a little over 1/3 of Fox's audience is conservative. That's what the haters would have you believe is "limited ideological diversity".
April 28, 2008, 5:52:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mark @ News Corpse
Oh c'mon Johnny...
You know very well that surveys where respondents self-identify have no standards for category definition. It's left to the respondent. Surveys that measure actual behavior are far more useful. Take this survey by the Mellman Group that shows that:
Fox viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88% to 7%. Only Republicans were more united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.
But my larger point was that it was pointless to appear on Fox because the reward/risk ratio was negative for Obama. Fox would trumpet any gaffes and bury the show if there were none. There were no gaffes and the show was buried. Did you see any clips replayed? It's like they ignored their biggest get of the year, something they were begging for, and instead blanketed their air with more Rev. Wright. (Not just Fox, MSNBC was doing it too. But they didn't have the Obama interview).
And please don't sink into the juvenile, O'Reilly crap of labeling critics as haters. That's just pathetic.
April 28, 2008, 7:29:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I could have predicted the Mellman "survey" would be whipped out like a wild west sharpshooter's pistol. Do you know the methodology of that "survey"? Are you aware that it is based on reading tea leaves from Nielsen ratings? And you put forth Mellman, a partisan who has a vested interest in Democrats winning, as a source for unbiased audience info on Fox? Pul-lease. If you are going to rebut a survey done by an apolitical professional polling outfit, at least try to do so without trotting out a "study" from a politician.
By the way, self-description of political positioning is done in almost every poll. Except maybe those "surveys" where they get their "data" by manipulating the results of ratings boxes.
>Did you see any clips replayed?
I would estimate that I have seen clips replayed a dozen times today, and that's just before 3:00 pm or so. I have it on tivo. Where's your evidence that no clips have been replayed? This is the thing with Fox bashers; they like to make charges without evidence. The truth can be so inconvenient so just make something up and hope the credulous will believe it.
> It's like they ignored their biggest get of the year
See above.
April 28, 2008, 7:33:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mark @ News Corpse
You are just arbitrarily dismissing a survey with which you disagree (despite your predictive prowess). Then you mock it with pithy charges about "tea leaves."
The Mellman Group is a well-respected (yes, Democratic) polling firm. Their success is testimony to the reliability of their results. If you want to dismiss their results due to their partisanship, then I assume you will likewise dismiss Fox Opinion Dynamics, Public Opinion Strategies, and of course, Frank Luntz. For the record, I dismiss none of them.
As for the replaying of clips, how can I show you evidence of something that hasn't occurred? Do you want a YouTube video of it not airing? If you have it on Tivo, then post it. Otherwise your charge that I'm making things up in the hopes that "the credulous will believe it," reflects more on you than me.
But as to my main point, which you didn't address, let's say I was in the restroom every time the clips were shown. Do you really think that the Obama/Wallace show was treated the same as the Wright affair? Do you think that it should have been? Just curious.
April 28, 2008, 10:44:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I dismissed your "survey" because you dismissed mine. For you to cite a partisan politician's survey (of shall we say unusual methodology) to rebut one by an apolotical polling firm is your methodology, but not one that I find very convincing.
> how can I show you evidence of something that hasn't occurred?
You know, I always get a chuckle out of people complaining about being asked to prove a negative. I chuckle because if you realize that you can't prove a negative, then you shouldn't ASSERT a negative. Because you know you can't prove it. I mean, I could run around and post one thing after another that this didn't happen, or that didn't happen, and I suppose people who agree with me would go yeah, dude, right on, give it to him. But it's all empty rhetoric for the credulous. If you are going to make a charge against Fox, how about taking the unusual step of getting the facts BEFORE you make the charge? That's all I ask.
As for how the Obama/Wallace show was treated, I know this. It was played on Fox broadcast, which Wright wasn't. It was replayed on FNC in full at 6:00 pm. It got a bonus replay on FNC at 2:00 pm. And then it got an unprecedented third replay on FNC at 11:00 pm. Yeah, they buried it all right.
April 28, 2008, 10:53:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Well just to lay this to rest I scanned through my tivo. I don't have the whole day because I lost an hour for some reason (I have to double check my settings I guess) but I admit I was wrong about seeing clips from the interview on FNC about a dozen times. I only found five, but there may have been one in the missing hour. Given how much time live coverage took up, and the unprecedented Four runs that the whole interview was given, that's not too shabby, and it's a whole lot more than zero!
April 28, 2008, 11:21:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mark @ News Corpse
You're right, I did dis your survey first. I forgot about that. Oops.
But you're still accusing me of not having the facts. I had Fox on all morning and didn't see a single clip from the interview. I can't prove that, but you still haven't proven you saw any. Chuckle if you like about proving a negative, but are serious about never asserting one? That would really stifle debate.
In any case, I don't think there's is any question that today's news was plastered with Wright on multiple nets, but nothing (or 5 clips, if I give you that) from their much vaunted interview. This is not Fox bashing. It bashing the media as a whole for obsessing about the words of a controversial ex-pastor rather than reporting the words of an actual candidate for president.
April 29, 2008, 12:34:08 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Well whose fault is that? Who forced Wright to give a series of live speeches? If you're saying the cablers shouldn't have covered him, that's an argument that can be made. But it doesn't prove anything against Fox, since Every Cable News Channel carried these speeches. In fact, CNN ran one of Wright's speeches, in its entirety, Three Times!
I just think it's kind of silly to claim Fox "buried" the Obama interview when they ran it at least four times in its entirety (MORE than any other Fox News Sunday program that I know of), posted the transcript, and posted the entire video on their website. And ran clips from it the next day.
April 29, 2008, 1:10:55 AM EDT – Like – Reply

J$, the Leftists believe that whenever something happens or someone says something which results in a setback in the progress toward the goals of the Left, then those events or utterances are by definition, not newsworthy.
When these negative things occur, the things that are newsworthy are those things wihich act to mitigate the damange done by the negative things.
Where were the Leftists complaining about the media hunting down the non-story about Bush's National Guard service.
Note how the Leftists want everyone to forget they ever heard the name Rev Wright.. however, they obssess over Hagee, and they dont even know what Hagee said... and I suspect they would agree with him in the alledgedly hateful things he said about the catholic church.
April 29, 2008, 1:29:27 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Mark @ News Corpse
Johnny, I said that it's NOT just Fox. CNN and MSNBC were just as bad - or worse. Chris Matthews spent his entire hour on Wright today.
Vince, if you think anyone on the left agrees with Hagee you need to check yourself in to a facility and get help. Good luck.
April 29, 2008, 2:12:29 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Why would you think the very people I am setting myself in opposition to would that I would think they hold my opinion. Makes no sense.
In any case, I am trying to understand what the big trouble is, I have yet to see a Hagee quote .
April 29, 2008, 2:24:13 AM EDT – Like – Reply

vince, philby/on the mark seems to have vast knowledge of the 'hagee scandal.' She should be able to 'put you in the know' on the subject as she has made numerous references since the 'good reverend' story broke.
April 30, 2008, 3:17:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply