The puppet master shows his hand
September 5th 2008 06:32
Far more interesting today than the love in at John McCain’s Republican convention speech, was the surprisingly soft interview of Barack Obama by Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly.
Yes, there was mass hysteria in St Paul as John McCain gave an ok speech. As he cycled through a predictable line up of war stories, sound bites and vitriol the crown booed and cheered on cue as if their life depended on it. McCain’s steady, but uninspiring tone inspired the kind of reaction usually reserved to a rock concert or a cup final. I’m sure it was genuine.
Preceding this, however, was a less spectacular but potentially far more revealing event. Bill O’Reilly, the most frothing of right wing attack dogs on Fox News, itself the most frothing of right wing news networks, interviewed Barack Obama. Without froth.
This interview had long been talked up by O’Reilly, but Obama had previously refused to appear on a network that had made several numerous personal attacks on him and his wife, including “terrorist” insinuations.
So what changed? Well, Rupert Murdoch held a meeting with the head of Fox News and Obama, at which the interview was agreed, along with certain other guarantees of restraint from the network. I suspect we will never know exactly what was said, but this could prove a pivotal point in the US election campaign.
Here is a selection of some of Bill O’Reilly’s comments:
On Iran: “diplomacy might work, you might be able to strangle them economically, maybe, maybe…”
On Iraq: I think history will show it’s the wrong battlefield, and I think that you were perspicacious in your original assessment of the battlefield”
“You gave a speech in Denver, good speech by the way…”
There were also opportunities for Obama to show that common ground existed between them, including this jokey offer from O’Reilly in regard to Obama getting funding back from Iraq: “I’m with you, I’ll go with you… we’ll get some of that money back”
Perhaps whatever deal was made by Murdoch extended only to soft treatment in this interview, or maybe the network will soften its attacks across the board in the coming weeks. Time will tell.
Murdoch’s influence on election campaigns in many countries over the years is well documented, but in recent times this has taken a turn to the left. Tony Blair was elected in Britian in 1997 due in no small part to the front page of “The Sun” on election day bearing the headline “Vote Blair”. For a right wing tabloid to openly support a labour leader was as controversial as it was effective in putting the final nail in the Tory coffin.
Kevin Rudd met Rupert in New York in April 2007, after which the media mogul stated he was “sure” Kevin would make a good Prime Minister. His newspapers in Australia fell into step and Rudd duly won a landslide.
In both these cases, it is possible to argue that Murdoch was simply following public opinion rather than leading it, backing a winner. I’m not so sure. I think this is hindsight talking, and in fact his media had a lot to do with sealing the landslide in each case, even as they made their gradual public transitions from being anti labour to pro labour, so the ideal became more palatable to their readers as well.
Fox News is a different case. It is so far to the right that it would never openly support Obama (and as a businessman first and foremost, Murdoch wouldn’t want it to). If however, they are seen to go easy on Obama, to show respect to his views, to give him credit, however begrudgingly for some of his actions… this could well be enough of a shock to send a message to independents that he is the man they should choose. “Even Fox News isn’t being that critical of him, he must be our guy.”
Have we just witnessed the puppet master’s entrance, stage left?
Yes, there was mass hysteria in St Paul as John McCain gave an ok speech. As he cycled through a predictable line up of war stories, sound bites and vitriol the crown booed and cheered on cue as if their life depended on it. McCain’s steady, but uninspiring tone inspired the kind of reaction usually reserved to a rock concert or a cup final. I’m sure it was genuine.
Preceding this, however, was a less spectacular but potentially far more revealing event. Bill O’Reilly, the most frothing of right wing attack dogs on Fox News, itself the most frothing of right wing news networks, interviewed Barack Obama. Without froth.
This interview had long been talked up by O’Reilly, but Obama had previously refused to appear on a network that had made several numerous personal attacks on him and his wife, including “terrorist” insinuations.
So what changed? Well, Rupert Murdoch held a meeting with the head of Fox News and Obama, at which the interview was agreed, along with certain other guarantees of restraint from the network. I suspect we will never know exactly what was said, but this could prove a pivotal point in the US election campaign.
Here is a selection of some of Bill O’Reilly’s comments:
On Iran: “diplomacy might work, you might be able to strangle them economically, maybe, maybe…”
On Iraq: I think history will show it’s the wrong battlefield, and I think that you were perspicacious in your original assessment of the battlefield”
“You gave a speech in Denver, good speech by the way…”
There were also opportunities for Obama to show that common ground existed between them, including this jokey offer from O’Reilly in regard to Obama getting funding back from Iraq: “I’m with you, I’ll go with you… we’ll get some of that money back”
Perhaps whatever deal was made by Murdoch extended only to soft treatment in this interview, or maybe the network will soften its attacks across the board in the coming weeks. Time will tell.
Murdoch’s influence on election campaigns in many countries over the years is well documented, but in recent times this has taken a turn to the left. Tony Blair was elected in Britian in 1997 due in no small part to the front page of “The Sun” on election day bearing the headline “Vote Blair”. For a right wing tabloid to openly support a labour leader was as controversial as it was effective in putting the final nail in the Tory coffin.
Kevin Rudd met Rupert in New York in April 2007, after which the media mogul stated he was “sure” Kevin would make a good Prime Minister. His newspapers in Australia fell into step and Rudd duly won a landslide.
In both these cases, it is possible to argue that Murdoch was simply following public opinion rather than leading it, backing a winner. I’m not so sure. I think this is hindsight talking, and in fact his media had a lot to do with sealing the landslide in each case, even as they made their gradual public transitions from being anti labour to pro labour, so the ideal became more palatable to their readers as well.
Fox News is a different case. It is so far to the right that it would never openly support Obama (and as a businessman first and foremost, Murdoch wouldn’t want it to). If however, they are seen to go easy on Obama, to show respect to his views, to give him credit, however begrudgingly for some of his actions… this could well be enough of a shock to send a message to independents that he is the man they should choose. “Even Fox News isn’t being that critical of him, he must be our guy.”
Have we just witnessed the puppet master’s entrance, stage left?
| 51 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
Comments (1)
Read More
