The Cheapening of American Politics: Why Did Obama Reward O’Reilly with an Interview?

[Brainstormy]

President Obama subjected himself to an interview by Bill O’Reilly of Fox “News” on Sunday before the Superbowl. Obviously, intellectually it was Obama Seahawks rolling over O’Reilly Broncos. And maybe it felt good to tell Fox News off for its serial propaganda against the administration. But I just regret that he lent either of these any credibility by a presidential appearance.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_cheapening_of_american_politics_why_did_obama_reward_oreilly_with_an_in

[Scuba]

1. How else will Fox gain credibility and be considered a "news" network?

[frazzled]

2. Because ...

it would have given the idiot O'Reilly MORE credibility had Obama refused a Superbowl interview ... something that, for better or worse, has become something of a tradition in recent years.

Imagine had Obama refused to be interview on the network that was airing the Superbowl. It would have provided months worth of fodder for how aloof/timid/unleader-like, etc. he is.

Obama did the right thing: show up and endure it. If he can't endure an interview with an adversarial tv show host, how can he be expected to endure negotiations with an adversarial government such as Iran's? That's who Obama is: he talks to his "enemies." He isn't threatened. Why are you?

[BrotherIvan]

5. That howling has been setting the agenda since he was elected

Let them howl. Let heads explode. The more they do, the more independents and non-fundnuts move away from them. Do you think teabillies really wanted to watch the President before their hallowed football fest? Do you think they actually watched it? And do you think that people mind when the President says he's too busy working on stuff to be on tv all the time, because I often hear quite the opposite.

Fox hates him. They will always hate him. Republicans won't work with him. WHY do we keep listening to them???? Everyone know that when you pay attention to the tantrums of a three year-old, they just get worse.

[Enthusiast]

3. The President gave Fox "News" undeserved legitimacy. Ill advised.

[Doctor_J]

4. He seems to have a mild case of batter spouse syndrome

Regardless of how the Repukes abuse him, he repeatedly tries to placate them. Probably the biggest reason for his failure to enact the agenda he campaigned on in 2008, and on the ass-kicking the party took in 2010.

[Doctor_J]

6. I just read it. Extremely cogent

But predictably, O’Reilly’s interview questions were all drawn from this fantasy parade of imaginary “scandals,” many of them flogged by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the nicest sociopath on the Hill. Basically, Obama allowed O’Reilly to put him on trial, with a series of 5 serious charges laid out against him, against which he was supposed to defend himself.

George Lakoff has been warning for years that liberals are letting conservatives frame the issues and dominate the public debate. Obama just did it again. Although he defended himself admirably from the trumped up charges, nevertheless, the interview consisted of broadcasting those charges to millions of people– an enormous audience. Why give Fox that boon? Why give it to a serial killer of the truth like O’Reilly?

That's pretty much it. the comments are uniformly scathing. Sample:

proletariatprincess • 7 hours ago
It is almost unbelievable that the President of the US would agree to sitting down with an idiot blowhard like Bill O'rielly. What the hell was he thinking? There is no upside for Obama...he is diminished even appearing with such an idiot. He can't possible believe there would ever be a real exchange of honest opinion with O'Rielly........ There is no debate on Fox. It is pure propaganda. I cannot believe that Obama and his administration didn't know that. I just can't imagine for the life of me why they would agree to such a thing. It seems like a stupid move and a waste of The President's valuable time. But then, this administration does a lot of things that I believe are a total waste of time and sometimes, just plain wrong wrong wrong.

El_Pinguino proletariatprincess • 4 hours ago
Just remember Proletariatprincess... Obama is not on your side. He is on their side.


Big B proletariatprincess • 6 hours ago
This should prove a harbinger for the next three years. Barry obviously thinks that the GOP is going to win the house again and subsequently will obstruct him from accomplishing anything. So in typical Barry and democratic fashion, they are going to sit in the corner holding their breath crying about those big Meanies in the GOP, and accomplishing nothing. They hope that by playing the victim they will hold onto the senate and win the pity vote for the White House in 2016. It's that or the DNC has just become the moderate wing of the Republican Party. Either way, we are screwed.

...

DachshundUberAlles • 4 hours ago −
While I do agree that a Presidential interview is a "legitimization" of what is well known to be nothing but a propaganda outlet, appearing there does create an illusion of a difference between (D) and (R). Republicans are afraid to appear on MSNBC, at least when it comes to a heavy hitter like Rachel Maddow. Can anyone imagine a sitting Republican President agreeing to be interviewed by Rachel Maddow in the same way Barack Obama allowed Bill O'Reilley to behave?
I'd like to see Barack Obama give Amy Goodman a chance at an interview but that is the last venue our corporatist President would ever consider entering.

[flying rabbit]

7. Obama brushed him off like a bug.

Only true foxheads saw it as a billo coup.