Common Sense Political Thought

I find this a very strange story.

Truce: White House, Fox News end feud

posted at 4:59 pm on October 28, 2009 by Allahpundit

Fishbowl DC had it first, then Mediaite confirmed it independently. Thus dies one of the sweetest, easiest sources of bloggy material we’ve had in ages. RIP.

The good news? These truces never last. Eventually Beck will accuse The One of being a Bilderberger or something and we’ll be playing the feud once again, oh yes.

Much more at the link; hat tip to DRJ for the link. But truce means:

1. A temporary cessation or suspension of hostilities by agreement of the opposing sides; an armistice.
2. A respite from a disagreeable state of affairs.

If the White House and Fox News have agreed to a truce, just what does it mean? From the White House, the agreement would normally be expected to be simple: no more attacks on Fox News, and no exclusions of Fox reporters from events. But normally the other side, Fox, would have had to have given up something as well, and the only thing Fox could have given up would be investigating and reporting on things the Obama Administration doesn’t like. Would it mean not investigating the past of people like Van Jones? Would it mean no longer presenting information or arguments in opposition to Administration policies or efforts?

As Sharon noted, both here and her own fine site, is that Fox News Channel’s ratings have risen noticeably since the Obama Administration started their attacks; maybe people are wondering what the Obama Administration is trying to hide. She also noted that Valerie Jarrett was following the “Call ‘em out” tactic, until she had to backtrack when she didn’t want to admit that the other cable news networks — MSNBC in this case — have their own biases, simply from the other side of the political spectrum.

So, what do we have? Has the Obama Administration concluded that they’d have to follow in the path of other presidencies, and simply bear up to whatever a hostile press says — Vice President Spiro Agnew’s “nattering nabobs of negativism” was a memorable quote, but it didn’t help the Nixon Administration any — or have the executives at Fox somehow knuckled under, and promised kinder, gentler coverage of the President?

If so, that would be an abandonment of journalistic integrity!

Our friends on the left were quite fond of telling us that aggressive, investigative news media were necessary to keep politicians honest and in check. That seems to have been a forgotten meme now that one of their own is now president, but their point was actually well taken. With more of the major media serving as lapdogs admiring the President and his policies, Fox has become one of a smaller number of journalistic enterprises looking for negative information about the Obama Administration.

I’d rather see Fox fighting the President than going easy on him; most of the rest of the media are already doing that.