If you watched the pre-game coverage for the Super Bowl, then you saw a parade of celebrities marching through, one almost comparable to the Oscars. Fox even had Michael Strahan situated on a "red carpet" of sorts, interviewing everyone from Harrison Ford to Jamie Foxx to Adam Sandler to Jennifer Aniston, all of whom were there to promote their upcoming film releases. Strahan even went out for a pass from Aniston, and seemingly underestimated her throwing arm as she hurled it well over his head and down a corridor separating two large groups of spectators.
But amongst all the hoopla, Fox reserved a 15-minute block of time for something altogether different and far more significant. From 4:45pm to 5:00pm, they switched over to the Fox News Channel and aired Bill O'Reilly's one-on-one interview with President Barack Obama. Given the current political and economic landscape of our country, I felt it was more than appropriate to do so. Granted, I am far more interested in world politics than the average person. But I'd much rather hear our president speak candidly on current issues that have far-reaching implications for our future than watch Jennifer Aniston show off her throwing arm. Especially when the interviewer is a tough, no-nonsense journalist who you knew would cut right through the mumbo jumbo and waste no time getting to the crux of the matter.
Leading up to the interview, there was a lot of talk about who would ultimately "win." Even when the interview concluded, pundits and bloggers sounded off on who got the best of who, as if this were some kind of raucous debate. I find that unfortunate, because it wasn't a debate, and was never intended to be a debate. But it just goes to show how divisive and combative we have become as a nation. Many on the left wanted Obama to shut O'Reilly up and make him look foolish. Those on the right wanted O'Reilly to embarrass Obama by pointing out several instances where he had contradicted himself.
But kudos to O'Reilly for rising above it all. He conducted himself very professionally, and no one can possibly say that he wasn't fair to the president. O'Reilly's tone was never confrontational, and his questions were very straightforward. I applaud him for refusing to play the "gotcha game" that so many liberal journalists engage in when they interview conservative politicians. The one that immediately comes to mind is Katie Couric's interview with Sarah Palin during the 2008 presidential campaign. She asked the vice presidential candidate an obscure question about John McCain's long history as a U.S. Senator. It forced Ms. Palin to respond by saying, "Well, I'm just going to have to get back to you on that one." As a result, she became the butt of jokes across the country and was made out to look like a bubblehead. But in reality, it was an unfair question. You'd think Couric would be far more concerned about delving into Ms. Palin's platform than seeing if she memorized McCain's Senate record.
O'Reilly started the interview in a classy way, by thanking the president for his role in freeing two Fox News journalists who had been beaten badly and detained during the riots in Egypt. He noted that both men could have died if not for the intervention of the State Department. Then, as a perfect segue, he asked Obama about what was going to happen in Egypt, if Mubarak was going to stay or go, and whether the president had any concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood.
From there, the interview shifted to topics such as healthcare, wealth distribution, whether the president is moving more to the center, the worst part of his job, whether Obama believes the presidency has changed him as a person, and if it bothers him that so many people hate him. All of these were fair questions. Throughout the interview, O'Reilly was very respectful, and sometimes downright deferential, toward the president. Yes, he interrupted him on several occasions, but you have to do that when you're limited to just fifteen minutes. If he hadn't interrupted, then they may have never even gotten past the first question. Someone needs to tell that to the folks at aol.com.
After the interview, opinions on O'Reilly's performance ranged from too soft to too harsh. There are those who wanted him to call Obama out on the exemptions for unions in the healthcare bill, or the discord among the members of his deficit commission. But O'Reilly promptly dismissed them on his program, "The O'Reilly Factor," by noting that he only had fifteen minutes for the interview. Clearly this is not enough time to get into those types of details, so he stuck with focusing on the broader issues. Overall, I would say that O'Reilly did an excellent job. He never came across as attacking the president, but he did manage to get his point across several times.
For example, though he couldn't get the president to outright reject the Muslim Brotherhood, O'Reilly referred to them as "tough boys" and told Obama that he wouldn't want them anywhere near the Egyptian government. On the healthcare law, the president stood his ground and refused to entertain the possibility that it would be declared unconstitutional. O'Reilly asked him twice if he was prepared to go back to the drawing board, and when Obama reiterated that he wasn't going to fight the same battles again, O'Reilly said, "But you're going to have to." Even when he asked the president whether he'd changed as a person since taking office, O'Reilly showed us that he had done his homework. As Obama talked about asking those who know him best, O'Reilly hinted that he already had done so. Apparently, the consensus was that the president had become much more guarded and seemingly more preoccupied since moving into the White House. This forced Obama to respond to those opinions, making this portion of the interview much deeper than it otherwise might have been.
So how did the president do? It's no secret that I am not one of his fans, but I have to give him this much. Barack Hussein Obama is a very, very skilled politician. He knows how to come across as an extremely likable guy on camera. He is adept at disarming his ideological opponents by conveying such an image, and ably defuses any situation before it escalates. When O'Reilly interviewed him during the presidential campaign, the veteran journalist was much more spirited and came close on several occasions to adopting his usual "don't give me that nonsense" tone. But each time it happened, Obama extended his hand and said, "Bill, Bill..." in a very calm, collected manner. The methodology was effective, as O'Reilly immediately backed off and reverted to a more subtle demeanor.
Obama did not allow himself to be pinned down, refusing to concede that he was moving closer to the center. Such an admission would have made him look weak, as if he needed to change in order to accommodate the new majority of Republicans in the House. Very smart move on his part. Basically, he wanted us to believe that he is still the same guy, with the same goals of making our country a better place for all Americans. Overall, I have to grade his performance as an "A." He did everything he needed to do from a political standpoint.
That being said, it is hard for me to trust the president. O'Reilly believes that Obama was sincere in his statement that he is not a leftist. He refuses to categorize himself that way, and O'Reilly accepted it at face value. I, for one, do not. I can't possibly comprehend that the president is not cognizant of his own ideology. He is extremely well educated as a graduate of Harvard Law School. Certainly he has studied philosophical and ideological systems of thought, and adopted several of those precepts as part of his own world view. Anyone can plainly see that there are strands of Marxist thought in his policies on healthcare and economics. And you mean to tell me that he himself doesn't see it? Sorry, but I'm not buying it.
The president has to be well aware of who he is and where his ideology lies. But again, being a skilled politician, he'd rather not allow himself to be boxed in and labeled as a leftist. This is probably my only criticism of O'Reilly, that he let Obama remain as slippery as an eel in this portion of the interview. He should have pressed him a little more on this one.
After Fox reverted to its normal coverage of the Super Bowl, O'Reilly interviewed the president for another full ten minutes. Though it wasn't shown on Fox, the footage did air on Monday night's episode of "The O'Reilly Factor." It was here that the Factor's "humble correspondent" scored a major, major triumph.
It's no secret that there is a rocky history between Fox News Channel and the Obama administration. Originally, Obama refused O'Reilly's invitation for an interview during the 2008 presidential campaign. After repeated attempts, the folks at FNC finally gave up and decided to go ahead with their own depiction of the Democratic presidential candidate. Bill O'Reilly announced that they would soon be showing a multi-part series documenting Obama's history, both personally and professionally. Upon hearing this, Obama's campaign strategists panicked and were forced to alter their course of action.
Love him or hate him, no one can deny the fact that Bill O'Reilly dominates the cable news ratings. He consistently drew millions more viewers than Keith Olbermann did during his tenure at MSNBC, and continues to crush his competitors at CNN and CNBC as well. Contrary to popular thought, his audience does not consist solely of conservatives. There are many independent voters that tune in at 8pm every night for the Factor, and these are the ones who Obama's advisers were most concerned about. Now they were painted into a corner. If Obama refused O'Reilly's requests for an interview, they would now have to sit back and watch helplessly as the Factor ran their own series, depicting their candidate any way they chose, all while millions and millions of voters tuned in to watch.
And so, they were left with no choice but to reach out to Fox News and grant O'Reilly's request. But you can bet your bottom dollar that they weren't happy about it. Even since his election, many people in the president's administration have lashed out at Fox as the main culprit for the contentious culture of partisan politics in our country. They've called for commentators such as Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck to tone down the rhetoric. But Hannity and Beck, among others, have dismissed such calls as attempts to limit freedom of speech, and rightly so. In the end, the Obama administration said that FNC was not a legitimate news network, but rather a mouthpiece for the Republican party.
Thus O'Reilly had a golden opportunity last Sunday, and he took full advantage of it. As the ten-minute segment that was not being aired live wrapped up, he asked Obama one final question. Was Fox a legitimate news network? The president answered yes, even acknowledging that other news networks had their own points of view and that this is OK. To elicit such a statement from President Obama is huge, because it can be used to silence the critics who continue to bash Fox News Channel. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the Huffington Post, New York Times...they've all been handcuffed now by the president's statement. How can they contradict the words of their leader, the anointed one whom they've sworn their allegiance to? Big win for O'Reilly, and big win for Fox News.
In the end, both O'Reilly and Obama came out of this interview smelling like a rose. In front of the largest TV audience ever, O'Reilly showed the world that Fox News Channel is indeed fair and balanced. He was respectful toward the president and refused to play the "gotcha game." Obama scored plenty of political points, executing his strategy perfectly. Those who watched could only walk away thinking that he's a very likable and sincere guy. For all the talk of who "won" in this "battle," the results are clear. Both sides emerged victorious.
No comments:
Post a Comment