No longer "overexposed"? Fox & Friends complains about lack of recent Obama pressers
On Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade and Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. criticized President Obama for not holding press conference since July, which Johnson claimed was a "tactic" to "avoid hard questions." But Fox News' newfound concern with Obama's purported press conference neglect stands in stark contrast to Fox's broadcast network's refusal to air both Obama's July and April 2009 conferences; and at the time of his most recent press conference, Fox News hosts claimed Obama was "overexposed."
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Kilmeade, Johnson criticize the White House for not holding a press conference since July
From the February 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
KILMEADE: President Obama hasn't had a full scale news conference since July. And now, many members of the White House press corps are asking why.
GIBBS [video clip]: We have done countless number of interviews, I think more interviews in the first year than any president certainly in recent memory. He enjoys the format. We just haven't done one in a while.
KILMEADE: OK, is the president trying to avoid the White House press corps? Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. has been here and has been talking about this before. Peter, what would be the tactic to not doing a news conference when you've already given so many -- press conference -- when you've already given so many one-on-one interviews?
JOHNSON: The tactic is to avoid hard questions and the tactic is to avoid hard follow-up questions. If you go on YouTube and you post photos on Flickr and you have deputy White House press secretaries send little Twitter messages and then you post White House videos and you say that's the same thing as answering a question from Wendell Goler at the White House from Fox News, it's not. It's the give and take and it's part of American history for the last century. This period -- seven months is the longest period that we've had in 10 years of the presidency. We've gone seven months without a press conference by the president.
KILMEADE: Because right now, this is what the administration says, look at our first year stats. First year interviews, President Obama, 161. President Bush just 50. President Clinton, 53. Is it -- does it have anything to do -- is the reason that the president have avoided the press conferences, anything to do with what happened last time in July when he did one?
JOHNSON: Well, I think it was July 22nd, he said that the Cambridge, Massachusetts, police department acted stupidly with regard to the situation.
But Fox Broadcasting refused to air both Obama's April and July press
conferences
Fox Broadcasting Co. declined to air April press conference. The Associated Press reported on April 28, 2009, that "Fox became the first broadcast network to turn down a request by President Barack Obama for time, opting to show its drama 'Lie to Me' on Wednesday instead of the president's prime-time news conference. Fox will direct viewers interested in the news conference to Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network, which will both carry it." Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace later said that Fox News was "boycotted" because Obama didn't call on its reporter and that Fox was "right" to not air it.
Fox Broadcasting Co. declined to air July press conference. According to Mediabistro's TVNewser blog, Fox Broadcasting Co. declined to air Obama's July 22, 2009, press conference, instead opting to "alert viewers with an on-screen graphic at the top of the 8:00 PM (ET) hour that the press conference is available on Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network." Fox reportedly opted to air its regularly scheduled program, "So You Think You Can Dance," instead.
Fox News hosts and guests
repeatedly complained that
Obama was "overexposed"
Fox "All Star Panel": "Is the president overexposed?" Two days after Obama's July 22, 2009, press conference, during the "All Star Panel" of Fox News' Special Report, host Bret Baier asked: "Is the president overexposed? Is he out there too much?" In response to Baier, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer stated: "He's overexposed. He's a great rock star, but even rock stars can outstay their welcome. He should only go out there on his own when he has something new to say and dramatic. He didn't. I think it's -- the faith he has in his own eloquence, it's larger than the reality of his own influence." [Special Report, 07/24/09]
Cavuto guest says presser makes Obama "overexposed." On the July 24, 2009, edition of
Fox News' Your World, host Neil
Cavuto said: "This whole thing kind of reminds me, though, of Regis
[Philbin], you know? At first, that whole Millionaire
show franchise, that looked huge. Once it started popping up every night, then
it wasn't so huge, was it?" Cavuto's guest, public relations consultant
Fraser Seitel, went on to assert that Obama is "starting to get
overexposed. He's on television. It's all Obama all the time." [Your World, 07/24/09]
S.E. Cupp: "President Obama
has lost his influence. He is overexposed." On the August 13, 2009, edition of
Fox News' Hannity, host Sean
Hannity agreed after conservative commentator S.E. Cupp said "unfortunately,
President Obama has lost his influence. He is overexposed. He is too many
places at too many times."
Fox News Sunday guests agree that
Obama is overexposed. On the September 20, 2009, edition of
Fox News Sunday, Wallace noted the "remarkable number of interviews that Barack
Obama has given so far in his young presidency," and asked Fox News Contributor
Brit Hume "what is President Obama getting for all that
exposure?" Hume said,
"less and less," and that he "risks overexposure."
Dick Morris: "[H]e's
obviously overexposed." On the September
21, 2009,
edition of Hannity,
Fox News contributor Dick Morris said Obama is "obviously overexposed but it's
like Bush giving the same speech about Iraq. People just stopped listening
at some point," to which Hannity replied: "Yes."
Hannity: Do Obama interviews make him "overexposed?" Later on
the September 21, 2009, show,
Hannity said to Republican pollster Frank Luntz: "Is Barack Obama-- and I'll
ask you, through the prism of this analysis, that up to this point in this
presidency, Bill Clinton did about 46 interviews, Bush about 40, Obama
124. Overexposed?" Luntz replied: "It's like penicillin. The first time that
you use it, it has 100 percent impact. Each time you use it, it becomes less
effective as the body develops immunity to it."
Many of these photo op press conferences are just showcases for presidents to preen a little anyway, pick and choose who asks them questions and then go on with their predetermined narrative. I am not as interested in words and phrases as actions and results.
If you think they are, you go with that.
From above "President Obama hasn't had a full scale news conference since July. And now, many members of the White House press corps are asking why".
And I thought your contributions here were negligent and worthless, silly me. The one above is actually one of your more substantive posts. Note to moderators here; Victor is A-Ok.
What do you want? Names. Lol
Tommy is right in this case. It's bitterness coming from the press corps.
In addition, I think Fox & Friends would criticize the president for making a right turn (when it should have really been left), and if it came out that he actually walked left, Fox & Friends would adapt their complaints to criticize the president for not walking straight... They are critcizm for the sake of making him look bad, no matter the decision, or the effect.
Sure, there's lots of politics on display. Even more so when the President totally controls the spin by giving a speech, or by his admin leaking something to the press which they report without challenging it. But there's also value in press conferences, and if you can't even admit that, well, it's just another nail in your coffin.
Ok then, but MMfA isn't going to be toooooo happy that you disagreed with them and challenged one of their threads. You're always on thin ice around here based on your checkered past, so I wouldn't press your luck if I were you.
Now Sue, this is where you show your incompetence and your less than lucid moments that are beginning to creep in.
Your criticism that I disagreed with MMFA falls apart. You said
"Fine, then you agree with Fox and Friends and their guest that Obama has been avoiding them and they offer a valuable service that he better remember and get them back in his regular schedule.
Ok then, but MMfA isn't going to be toooooo happy that you disagreed with them and challenged one of their threads."
But I didn't say anything that would lead to anyone with half a brain claiming that I disagreed with MMFA.
And I'm not on thin ice with them, as I am not the really scary poster who makes your panties get into a wad, the poster you claim has been banned multiple times.
The person showing a lack of lucidity here would be you. You're the one who couldn't remember the criticism of me you had made 90 minutes earlier!!!
What I see not being tolerated are behaviors such as use of logical fallacies to attempt to "win" an argument, being unable to cite reliable sources for claims, or willful ignorance.
You've already racked up two out of the three that I listed... Care to go for the full set?
He did one today - spoke for about 30 minutes or so.
I don't know if it's that Fox viewers have the memory of a gold-fish, the cognitive ability of a gold-fish, or the ears of a gold-fish, but someway or another, the resemblance between them and goldfish is uncanny!
"But no full, freewheeling exchange with the WH press corp since July".
That's what you said.
Did you think that your previous posts were hidden?
Just because there hasn't been a primetime one doesn't make your accusations accurate.
No?
We could go into other aspects of press conferences, but I suspect a terminal case of Goldielock's syndrome.
Throw that hissy cow. You'll feel better.
YOU said (and again, do you STILL think we can't see your previous posts?) "But no full, freewheeling exchange with the WH press corp since July."
It doesn't have to be a scheduled, primetime presidential press conference with every possible reporter present in order for it to be a "full, freewheeling exchange with the WH press corps", you fool.
And that's the fatal flaw here.
However, that's not WHAT happened. He spoke with the press for about half an hour on a variety of topics.
Your suggestion that I would call a time when the Prez would pop in to sing a press conference is a disgusting, appalling, untrue strawman argument that's so far from reality that it's sicker than the guy who was in A Clockwork Orange!
By ANY reasonable standards, what Obama did yesterday, and what he's done a number of other times during the day, all of those qualify as a press conference. He just hasn't had a primetime press conference!
And, as I clearly explained to you, it doesn't have to be a primetime press conference in order to be a "full, freewheeling exchange with the WH press corps".
He had a couple of minute opening statement, then took his first question from Major Garrett with FoxNews. (your allegation that 'all' the major reporters weren't there is bogus - they all show up for the daily press briefings from Robert Gibbs, and so they all were there when Obama showed up and took the place of Gibbs).
He was asked questions by about 10 people. He stuck around longer than he planned to do because he hadn't taken a 'jobs' question - so he got a variety of questions, not just questions about his meeting on healthcare that had just happened.
Your allegation that it wasn't a "full, freewheeling exchange with the WH press corps" is ridiculous and not based on the facts.
How much longer are you going to continue to embarrass yourself here by trying to claim that it was short of that goal?
It was not a full blown press conference, with all WH reporters notified.
All WH reporters are there for the briefings that Gibbs gives, and on top of that, shortly before that, the Prez had said some prepared remarks, and all the reporters were there for THOSE remarks and hadn't left!!!
The president's attendance and answering a few questions on selected subjects today would be similar to a press availability in the oval office or a sidewalk availability.
But that is NOT what happened on Tuesday, you tool. He didn't just answer a few questions, and they weren't on 'selected' subjects either. In fact, Obama extended the session when he realized that he hadn't taken a question about jobs!
Full blown, presidential press conferences at the WH are typically handled in the East Room, I believe.
The physical location doesn't matter at all.
If you have questions about this, maybe you should ask a WH reporter who was not aware that the president was going to drop by.
So, they are so bad at their jobs that unless they know he's going to stop by, they can't come up with reasonable questions to ask him? Do you REALLY believe that - do you really think that the WH press corps is so crappy that they don't have any ideas about what they would ask him when presented with a spontaneous opportunity to do so - during a time period when they would have been asking similar questions of the Prez's representative? Really? Could you BE any less honest here?
He has done that from time to time, during the past year or so. That is true. Attendance and answering a few questions does not a presidential press conference make!
But that isn't what happened yesterday, you tool. As I said, he's had press conferences. He had one yesterday. He just hasn't had a primetime one.
As soon as he starts having these again (he's been kind of busy lately), he'll get pinned as being overexposed again by lots of people, and we'll start hearing about how bad it is that the President is on TV again.
This pretty much sums up the entire Fix news network, their talking heads and the pundits they bring on their shows. Notice how most of the pundits ONLY appear on Fox? Gee, wonder why. It's like when conservatives whine that no one is willing to debate them, when on an almost nightly basis, people like Obermann and Rachel Maddow are basically begging for them to come on their shows for a debate. And what do the conservatives do? They go on Fox and whine to their sycophants that everybody's too scared to debate them.
Or President Obama can just post Facebook updates and call that a debate. It seems to be an accepted and unquestioned practice Fox.
What a peice of garbage they are.