Was Clinton "Outfoxed" ?
I wanted to focus my blog on an issue we are currently covering, which is the Mainstream Media’s relationship with politicians and the overall media influence on the political system. In particular I want to focus on Bill Clinton’s recent interview on Fox News. Fox is known to be a very conservative and Right Wing network, as documented by the movie “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism”. The interview in question was aired on September 22 and was done by Chris Wallace. It started off with pretty basic questions and both were acting amicably. Then Wallace turns the tables by telling Clinton that all Fox viewers want to know why he didn’t do more to stop Osama Bin Laden.
Obviously the interview is about to move in a different direction and the open hostility between the two is apparent. The entire time that they are talking, they constantly keep cutting one another off. It seems surreal to see it unfolding in to a full scale yelling match. Clinton responds to the question, calmly at first then intensifies his point, by saying, “I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden.”
Clinton counterattacks the conservative Wallace by blaming the Republicans for the recent criticism of Clinton’s lack of pursuing Al Quaida, according to republicans, and his over pursuing of bin Laden by Democrats. It has become an incredibly “he said, she said” battle. He calls Bush’s supporters “neo-cons” which in itself could be seen as a derogatory name. Clinton continues to get infuriated as Wallace continues his attack. Wallace continually cuts Clinton off mid sentence, and Clinton even responds mid answer “This is bull”.
The question that is brought to mind is if the media really is controlling the way we think? How do we determine if the news itself is what is biased? Who is responsible for watching our supposed “watch dogs”? There are really no provisions for a media outlet to be checked on what they say unless by competing news media, or extensive research, like the “Outfoxed” documentary. Even if someone were to write in a few weeks the inaccuracies and leading questions Wallace asked, the damage is already done. What will stick in people’s minds is that Clinton was being blamed for knowing beforehand about al Qaida and doing nothing to stop it. No one will remember the follow up that relieved him of any wrongdoing (which some have been trying to do by citing the 9/11 Commission Report). This interview is a perfect example of agenda setting by the media. Fox News could have focused the entire interview on Clinton’s humanitarian efforts, the Clinton Global Initiative or the upcoming election, but they chose their own conservative agenda. Clinton even accuses Wallace of luring him there under false pretenses saying, “[You] said that you’d spend half the time talking about — you said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7-billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.”
The reason the al Qaida topic was raised, and not the humanitarian efforts is that this takes away criticism on the current Bush administration by showing the former administration had the same knowledge and more time. Fox is telling the American public to start equating our current problems in Iraq, 9/11, and al Qaida with Clinton and not Bush. Fox was successful because this has been talked about very heavily for the last few weeks. The most often raised question is did Clinton know and do enough? Which was Fox’s intention, it was the issue they covered, and that is what infiltrated the public’s interest.
Clinton realizes he has been caught up in the middle of an agenda setting interview by saying, “Well, there’s a reason it’s on people’s minds. That’s the point I’m trying to make. There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds: Because there’s been a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression.” Clinton acknowledges that he feels ambushed by saying “So you did Fox’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.”
Although Fox News asked the questions, they have tried to spin the interview in to Clinton as the aggressor. The Chief of Fox News, Roger Ailes said, “Bill Clinton's response to Fox anchor Chris Wallace's question about efforts he made to pursue Osama Bin Laden was an assault on all journalists." This entire Clinton interview is a perfect illustration of media’s influence and incivility in politics.
Obviously the interview is about to move in a different direction and the open hostility between the two is apparent. The entire time that they are talking, they constantly keep cutting one another off. It seems surreal to see it unfolding in to a full scale yelling match. Clinton responds to the question, calmly at first then intensifies his point, by saying, “I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden.”
Clinton counterattacks the conservative Wallace by blaming the Republicans for the recent criticism of Clinton’s lack of pursuing Al Quaida, according to republicans, and his over pursuing of bin Laden by Democrats. It has become an incredibly “he said, she said” battle. He calls Bush’s supporters “neo-cons” which in itself could be seen as a derogatory name. Clinton continues to get infuriated as Wallace continues his attack. Wallace continually cuts Clinton off mid sentence, and Clinton even responds mid answer “This is bull”.
The question that is brought to mind is if the media really is controlling the way we think? How do we determine if the news itself is what is biased? Who is responsible for watching our supposed “watch dogs”? There are really no provisions for a media outlet to be checked on what they say unless by competing news media, or extensive research, like the “Outfoxed” documentary. Even if someone were to write in a few weeks the inaccuracies and leading questions Wallace asked, the damage is already done. What will stick in people’s minds is that Clinton was being blamed for knowing beforehand about al Qaida and doing nothing to stop it. No one will remember the follow up that relieved him of any wrongdoing (which some have been trying to do by citing the 9/11 Commission Report). This interview is a perfect example of agenda setting by the media. Fox News could have focused the entire interview on Clinton’s humanitarian efforts, the Clinton Global Initiative or the upcoming election, but they chose their own conservative agenda. Clinton even accuses Wallace of luring him there under false pretenses saying, “[You] said that you’d spend half the time talking about — you said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7-billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.”
The reason the al Qaida topic was raised, and not the humanitarian efforts is that this takes away criticism on the current Bush administration by showing the former administration had the same knowledge and more time. Fox is telling the American public to start equating our current problems in Iraq, 9/11, and al Qaida with Clinton and not Bush. Fox was successful because this has been talked about very heavily for the last few weeks. The most often raised question is did Clinton know and do enough? Which was Fox’s intention, it was the issue they covered, and that is what infiltrated the public’s interest.
Clinton realizes he has been caught up in the middle of an agenda setting interview by saying, “Well, there’s a reason it’s on people’s minds. That’s the point I’m trying to make. There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds: Because there’s been a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression.” Clinton acknowledges that he feels ambushed by saying “So you did Fox’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.”
Although Fox News asked the questions, they have tried to spin the interview in to Clinton as the aggressor. The Chief of Fox News, Roger Ailes said, “Bill Clinton's response to Fox anchor Chris Wallace's question about efforts he made to pursue Osama Bin Laden was an assault on all journalists." This entire Clinton interview is a perfect illustration of media’s influence and incivility in politics.
posted by MaryEsler | 7:01 PM
1 Comments:
Mary raises a great question in terms of media influence on the political system--who watches the watchdogs? It's very unusual for a journalist to interrupt a sitting or ex-president during an interview, no matter if they agree with that person's politics or not. The office is seen as deserving the interviewer's respect. So did Wallace plan on making the interview so rough-and-tumble so that it would get noticed and bring to the forefront the Clinton-Bin Laden issue? If so then , as Mary argues, it's an interesting intersection of incivility and media agenda setting. Has it been successful?
Post a Comment
<< Home