About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

FLASHBACK: When Fox News Ignored The Birther Story In 2008

April 14, 2011 10:38 am ET by Eric Boehlert

One of the many mysteries surrounding the zombie-like resurrection of the thoroughly debunked Obama birth certificate story and its renaissance within right-wing media, and especially Fox News is, "Why now?" Other than Donald Trump’s decision to wallow in the shallow conspiracy, what has triggered the sudden interest and the sudden charade that the birther story is legitimate? 

The questions mount when you look back and realize that during the 2008 campaign, when the birther story was first peddled and, one could argue, was more relevant as a national campaign played out, Fox News essentially ignored the story. As Obama was running for the White House and questions from the far right were raised about Obama’s eligibility and his birthplace, Fox News (wisely) turned a blind eye to the story. Then, in 2009, in the wake of Obama’s landslide electoral win, when Fox News personalities did address the birther issue it was usually to belittle the story and mock it as a foolish conspiracy theory.

That’s right. In 2008 and 2009, Fox News basically couldn’t be bothered with the birther story. Fast-forward to 2011, though, and the Fox team can’t stop talking about it.

Why? In terms of actual birther “news,” there is none today. And of course there hasn’t been any “news” in three years, because nobody on the right-wing fringe has been able to advance the so-called story. Not one inch.

Unlike the right wing’s hollow pursuit of the Whitewater non-scandal during the Clinton years -- at least that story had some actual twists and turns and breaking developments to cover. Not so with the birther story, which remains, as a news event, utterly stagnant.

And guess what? That’s how Fox News treated the topic in 2008.

Looking back at Fox News that year (or at least looking back at the prime-time show transcripts cataloged by Nexis), it’s startling how little the channel cared about the birther story, given Fox's current fascination. Based on my search of 2008, I found exactly two pre-election references to the Obama/birth certificate story.

The first came on August 15, in a report about a new, birther-friendly book by Obama critic Jerome Corsi, who claimed he could have learned more about Obama’s past if the candidate “would release primary documents like his birth certificate.” (Interestingly, the Fox News report seemed to dismiss the birther allegations,  noting Corsi’s book contains “numerous factual errors especially about Obama's origins and family” and  “repeats falsehoods” that were “long again disproved.” Ouch.)

Then on Sept. 16, host Bill O’Reilly answered some viewer mail on the air [emphasis added]:

Mel Westerfield, Brandon, Mississippi: "Bill, your report said Obama  was born in Hawaii. It is my understanding he was born in Kenya."

Not accurate, sir. He was born in Honolulu. His birth certificate is authentic.

Bill Daniel, Fairfield, Texas: "Bill, you failed to mention Obama's mother and father were not married."

That is false, sir. They married on February 2, 1961. Now I can go on with these letters, but you get the picture. Please do not believe who you read on the Net.

And that’s it. Those are the only relevant references to “Obama” and “birth certificate” I could find in Nexis for Fox News in 2008, prior to Election Day.

The following year, Fox News’ interest in the story didn’t change much, and when birthers did get mentioned, they were usually mocked. That year, O’Reilly called the cause “irrational” and “dumb,” guest Bernie Goldberg denounced followers as “nut job birthers,” while Glenn Beck dismissed them as “idiots.” 

All of which again prompts this question for Fox News: Why now?

If the birther story was of zero interest to Fox News during the 2008 campaign, and if it was mocked in 2009, why would the exact same set of birther facts now be of paramount interest? It’s rather baffling. Although the channel’s colossal flip-flop  would seem to confirm that Fox’s new-found fascination with Obama's birth certificate has nothing to do with news or journalism, and everything to do with partisan politics.

Surprise! 

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by namjah55 (April 14, 2011 10:46 am ET)
      3  
      The only reason I can think of is that the right still doesn't see any candidate that's strong enough to defeat Obama, so they have to play this up to try to weaken him.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by thaneb (April 14, 2011 10:54 am ET)
      5  
      So too, pushing hard could arguably have brought into question the Constitutionality of 8 USC S1403 which conferred upon John McCain, and others, Presidential eligibility even though born in the Panama Canal Zone {the Constitution cannot simply be trumped by act of Congress}.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tspang (April 14, 2011 11:06 am ET)
      2  
      Why now? Simple: a majority of Republican primary voters (57% I think) now think Obama was born in Kenya. I'm willing to be that number was much lower in 2008/2009.

      They see the trend, and are playing to their (stupid) audience. To their (stupid) audience, of course, the fact that Fox "News" has increased their birther coverage further validates this insanely stupid conspiracy theory.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by RealTruthseeker (April 14, 2011 11:37 am ET)
        2  
        You got it right. Plus, Trump is in the mainstream of "pop" culture with "The Apprentice", and is more visible than he has ever been. It isn't just FauxNews obsessing on this anymore. But it has given NBC and CNN the opportunities to show how crackpot the allegations are to more people who are paying attention. No question Trump is testing the waters to find if this issue can carry him to a GOP nomination, which the polling shows he has a chance.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by kamrom (April 14, 2011 4:16 pm ET)
             
          Thats just cause people are mentioning his name. I know that the same story that cited that figure showed that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett scored even higher.

          A lot changes once a race starts and people slowly start to actually pay attention again. Ones like Trump are obliterated and 'encouraged' to back off gracefully, quite quickly.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by David2012 (April 14, 2011 11:09 am ET)
      4  
      When your audience has come to include folks who believe the President is an alien from another planet who's had secret brain surgery, running with the birther "story" isn't difficult at all.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by galmud (April 14, 2011 11:17 am ET)
      1  
      Maybe the political discourse has been pushed so far to the crazy right by the likes of Glenn Beck, that this ridiculous disgusting birther attack is no longer poison at Faux News.

      Back in 2008 there was some mentally disturbed man who claimed that he had had a brief sexual rendezvous in a limo with Barack Obama while smoking pot together. I wouldnt be surprised if Faux News picks up this nonsense in the future
      Report Abuse
    • Author by borderraven (April 14, 2011 11:58 am ET)
        6
      If Obama was born in Hawaii, and his parents were married, then he is a native-born UK/US dual-citizen.

      You establish he was born in Hawaii.
      You Establish his parents were married.
      However you seem to have conveniently skipped over the fact his father was a UK citizen, in the US on a student visa.
      He would be under British consular jurisdiction, per UK/US treaty.
      His birth would be governed by the British Nationality Act, 1948.

      The requirement that for consular registration within one year of birth applied only if the father was a Citizen of the UK and Colonies (CUKC) by descent only and the child was also to become a CUKC by descent rather than birth in the UK or colonies. As Barack Obama Sr, was born in the colony of Kenya, he was a CUKC by birth rather than descent. Thus, Barack Obama II was capable of becoming a CUKC by descent without the need for consular registration.

      British Nationality Act, 1948
      (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56.
      Part II Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
      Citizenship by birth or descent.
      5. Citizenship by descent.
      "5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:
      Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—
      (a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or" ...

      When trying to articulate the qualifications for the Office of the US President, it is important to remember s/he is also the Commander in Chief of the military, the militias, and can declare martial law. It is therefore imperative to narrow the possible candidates who from birth on the soil and of the blood of two citizens, would derive loyalty to this soil and people. The natural born citizen, owes loyalty to no foreign nation or people, and is the only pool of candidates for the Office of the US President.

      A natural born U.S. citizen can choose dual citizenship at majority, but must relinquish foreign nationality before taking political office in the US, and anybody previously a dual-national is ineligible for the US Presidency and Commander of the military.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ScienceBuff (April 14, 2011 12:08 pm ET)
        3  
        That nonsensical argument didn't work for Phillip Berg and it doesn't work for you.

        The problem with it is that the dual-citizenship is only granted under British law. It isn't recognized under American law. Obama is recognized as an American citizen and any other citizenship recognition granted by any other nation is completely irrelevant.

        Throwing out an analogy I've used before, let's say that a small South American nation granted citizenship rights to all Caucasian males born in the US. All of a sudden, under the principles of your argument, all white guys running for President would be ineligible for the office. It's no more idiotic than the idea that a peculiarity of British law somehow supersedes US law on citizenship.

        Lastly, you're asserting a definition of "natural born citizen" as factual that has never been established as such in law.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by kamrom (April 14, 2011 4:27 pm ET)
             
          These are the same folks who have, somehow, come to believe the US's national language is English. It, of course, is not. There is none. But that hasnt stopped them from saying it.



          And theres the treaty of tripoli, spelling out in no uncertain terms that we the US is not a christian nation nor an anti-muslim nation. They just pretend like that thing doesnt exist, because ive never heard them use it in one of thier arguments or respond when we do.



          If they can't even accept the stuff written by the founders they love so much, we certainly cant expect them to do so with *modern* legislation.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (April 14, 2011 2:01 pm ET)
           
        Ah no border. It is sad how brainwashed you birthers are. Lets start with your first sentence. It is WRONG. IF, as we all know is true, Obama was born in Hawaii he is a natural born citizen as per the 14th Amendment. It doesnt matter one WHIT whether or not his parents were married or who they are or what citizenship they have.

        Since you established in your first sentence that you dont know what you are talking about there really isnt much reason to read further
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Likearock (April 14, 2011 12:39 pm ET)
         

      I'm opening myself up to being labeled a birther, but...

      If Obama's 'Certificate of Live Birth' is supposedly a "copy of the original"...
      Why then is it printed on "Laser" Paper?...
      When we all know there were no Laser Printers, much less Laser Paper, back in 1961?

      Follow the link below and look in the bottom left hand corner of the certificate to confirm... Laser Paper???

      http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/n_obama_birth_certificate.htm
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jason10006 (April 14, 2011 1:25 pm ET)
      2  
      Its not even hypothetical - under the various right to return laws, any children, grandchildren, and sometimes even great-grandchildren and GREAT-GREAT grandchildren of people born in various countries like Japan, Ireland, the Philippines, etc. are automatically citizens even if born in the US or anywhere else. And in the extreme case of Israel, ALL Jews are eligible. And places like Armenia and other places have similarly open-ended citizenry eligibility.

      Under the above super silly argument, no Jew could ever run for President, nor could anyone who had one or more grandparents or even great-great grandparents from any number of countries.

      Basically, anyone whose ancestors did not come over on the Mayflower could be barred under this silly logic.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jason10006 (April 14, 2011 1:25 pm ET)
        1  
        See for example:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return

        Contents
        [hide]

        * 1 Background
        o 1.1 Reacquisition
        * 2 Armenia
        * 3 Belarus
        * 4 Bulgaria
        * 5 People's Republic of China
        * 6 Croatia
        * 7 Cyprus
        * 8 Czech Republic
        * 9 Diego Garcia's Chagossians
        * 10 Finland
        * 11 France
        * 12 Germany
        * 13 Greece
        * 14 Hungary
        * 15 India
        * 16 Iraqi Kurdistan
        * 17 Ireland
        * 18 Israel
        * 19 Japan
        * 20 Lithuania
        * 21 Norway
        * 22 Palestinian refugees
        * 23 Poland
        * 24 Romania
        * 25 Russia
        * 26 Serbia
        * 27 Spain
        * 28 Taiwan (Republic of China)
        * 29 Ukraine
        * 30 United Kingdom
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ScienceBuff (April 14, 2011 2:19 pm ET)
          1  
          Wow, I hadn't realized that. Thank you. I didn't realize my hypothetical was so non-hypothetical.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by BullDawg (April 14, 2011 1:47 pm ET)
           
        My heritage descends from pilgrims who came here before this country was even founded and I would like to know the truth behind Obama's birth certificate.

        As it is, we are shown Obama's 'Certificate of Live Birth',
        which is supposedly, a 'copy of the original'.
        So why is it printed on "Laser" Paper?...
        When we all know there were no Laser Printers, much less Laser Paper, back in 1961?

        And, why does Obama spend a small fortune in defense of hiding his Birth Certificate?

        So, why doesn't he just show it, and forgo all the questioning?

        direct questions - would generally deserve direct answers... but of course, only Obama knows the answers to these questions.


        To view Obama's Certificate of Live Birth,
        follow link and look in the bottom left hand corner to confirm Laser Form.

        http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/n_obama_birth_certificate.htm
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.