The Sound And The FOX-y (Signifying Nothing)

The Wingers are already declaring "victory" over FOX News's Bret Baier scoring an interview with President Obama, and proving why the President was leery about granting an interview to the "fair and balanced" network. What you expected to happen was exactly what did happen.  Time's Kate Pickert:

But yet, Bret Baier – the lucky Fox News personality who was granted an exclusive sit-down with the President today – spent about 80% of the health care section of the interview asking Obama about process. This is not surprising, but it's still worth pointing out. Baier said Fox News viewers e-mailed in 18,000 questions for the President, then implied that most of them were about the special deals for certain states contained in the Senate bill and about the "self-executing rule” House Democrats may use to take health care reform over the finish line.

To be fair, anyone who interviewed Obama today would have asked about process – and probably even the “self-executing rule.” Baier asked if Obama supports the procedural tactics House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is considering? Fair question. Obama implicitly answered yes, saying he doesn't get hung up on procedure. Which sweetheart deals that are in the original Senate bill will be stripped out by the House package of “fixes”? Another fair question. But on this one, Obama started to answer, but Baier – later saying he was trying to “get the most for our buck here” – cut the President off. Check it out:



Watching Baier interrupt the President off made the interview jarring to watch. I also think it's silly to spend the vast majority of an interview segment on health care asking questions about a procedure Republicans used when they were in power. But I give Fox News credit for not letting Obama turn the interview into an infomercial for Democratic health care reform. Aren't we all a little tired of those?

Well, of course the reason that the President has to talk about the substance of health care so much is because the Village clearly doesn't want to talk about it, and are too lazy to do actual journalism.  It's much easier to throw a bunch of Cavuto marks at the President and then interrupt him when he tries to call foul on your questions.  Example:

You have said at least four times in the past two weeks: "the United States Congress owes the American people a final up or down vote on health care." So do you support the use of this Slaughter rule? The deem and pass rule, so that Democrats avoid a straight up or down vote on the Senate bill?

And:

Monday in Ohio, you called for courage in the health care debate. At the same time, House Speaker Pelosi was saying this to reporters about the deem and pass rule: "I like it, this scenario, because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill." Is that the kind of courage that you're talking about?

Baier really was rude, combative, and interruptive.  You expect that from a network that has a stated agenda to stop the President's legislation.  But the sad part was the rest of the "liberal media" taking shots at Obama and cheering Baier on, as he saved us from another "infomercial for Democratic health care reform".  As I said, it's much easier to spend the interview attacking the President for procedural rules the Republicans used time and time again when they were in charge than it is telling facts.