Just released:  Bill Reilly will interview President Obama right before the Super Bowl pre game.  O’Reilly interviewed Obama as a candidate but he has not interviewed him as  president.  The President has granted one interview with Fox News so far and that was with Brett Baier.  Baier was not on his best behavior.  In fact, he was very rude to the President and continually interrupted him.

O’Reilly is a much more skilled interviewer.  According to Politico:

O’Reilly interviewed Obama as a candidate, but as president Obama has given just one interview to Fox News, last year with Bret Baier. The Obama Administration has had a famously contentious relationship with Fox News, with then-White House communications director Anita Dunn calling it “not a real news organization” in 2009, but the relationship has thawed someone over time as Obama administration officials went on shows like “Fox News Sunday.”

O’Reilly is smart.  I don’t always like him but I have confidence that he will handle this situation as a professional commentator, if not journalist.  This might just be an opportunity to see the President and  the President  both shine.  It might be a great night for both Mr. O’s.  O’Reilly can be very fox or he can outfox the foxes.  I predict he will rise about all the Murdoch fox doo and conduct one hell of a good interview. 

So is the President slumming or is this a great move for him?  How about O’Reilly? 

26 Thoughts to “Will the Prez go slumming before the Super Bowl?”

  1. marinm

    I agree. It’s slumming anytime the President of the United States is interviewed by the media outside of the control of the Department of Truth Enhancement or the Ministry of News.

    Why so much Fox hate?

  2. I have said many times why I dislike Fox News. The sneering and opinions infused during reporting would be a good starting place.

    I don’t hate faux news. I dislike it. Hate consumes way too much energy. I dislike any ‘news’ agency that really serves as the mouth piece for a political party. Then it ceases to be news and instead, becomes filtered republican propoganda.

  3. marinm

    If that’s the case, why would the POTUS stoop to be interviewed on a propoganda machine (that he doesn’t control)?

  4. I can’t figure that out. Why would you go to a station that continually trashes you non-stop? Too many Mai Tais in Hawaii?

    Actually he probably wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t O’Reilly.

  5. e

    the president is a coward. if he really had guts, he’d go on hannity

  6. Why the heck is ANY President getting interviewed on same day as the SUPERBOWL? That day is all about football. And cheerleaders. No one will watch it or remember that interview…… oh wait. Now I get it. Never mind.

  7. Starryflights

    I like unbiased news. That’s why I don’t watch Fox as they are biased in favor of Republicans.

  8. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    “Faux News”. I get it! Clever!

  9. Morris Davis

    e :
    the president is a coward…

    … cried the brave anonymous man or woman through his or her frowny-face cartoon avatar.

  10. e

    my apologies, obama is the second coming of christ, who can do no wrong, above critique and beyond reproach, the one we have been waiting for! all hail our great leader! may his reign continue for a thousand years!

  11. @e

    Nooooo, you are about 18 years too late. :mrgreen:

  12. Pat.Herve

    the problem with fox, is first, it is largely not news, but a talking head pundit network (does hannity really deliver any news?) and on their news giving, they are trying to make (spin) the news and sway public opinion. Look at the Bill Sammon email leaks to see what he had to say on Healhcare and Global Warming –

    a good news organization (is there any left? BBC?) reports the news, and lets me make my own opinion, what we have today, are opinion networks that deliver the opinion first, and then slant the news to fit the opinion.

    or when you have someone like Beck, who will even snippet out his own words to try and make a point – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/maddow-slams-glenn-beck-f_n_465331.html

  13. @Moon-howler
    I should really drink my coffee before doing fancy math in my head…like adding and subtracting…….

    1. @Cargo….I do that all the time myself. At first I thought I had made the mistake. It wouldn’t have been the first time. I don’t calculate well in my head.

  14. @Pat.Herve
    I actually agree with you a lot about the status of our current “news” organizations, but state that they’ve ALWAYS been this way. Its just out in the open.

    As for Beck: Maddow DID edit that radio snip to make HER point and did not report Beck’s entire statement. (I actually remember hearing that piece and thinking, “This time tomorrow, everyone will be saying that Beck is denying the existence of global warming because of winter.) Of course, evidence shows that all this new snow is evidence that the AGW crowd was wrong. Again.

    GLENN BECK: The very next line. Do you have the very next line that I said on the air, Stu? Because I’d like to quote it. I quoted it in the podcast. You have to see it. I think it comes out today or tomorrow. But the very next line that I said was you’re an idiot if you believe this one storm in Washington proves there’s no global warming. I mean, it’s the very next line. They are so dishonest. They have to go that far…It’s also known as propaganda. That’s, that’s anti-conservative or anti, you know, you as a listener, or anti-me propaganda. There’s no truth to it at al

    Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/16/glenn-beck-calls-rachel-maddow-dishonest-propaganda#ixzz1ANpeprzV

    Or another source:

    After all, Beck’s point Monday was that Maddow and Company stopped the audio from his radio program last week just as he was going to demolish their entire premise by saying, “How many times have I said both for hurricanes and no hurricane, this doesn’t, one storm, one storm does not prove anything?”

    Beck’s challenge to Maddow therefore was to explain WHY this audio was cut off at PRECISELY the moment her point about him would be discredited.

    Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/17/rachel-maddow-strikes-back-glenn-beck-i-didnt-lie-back#ixzz1ANpq1YE6

  15. Agreed Pat. I want to hear what happened and then draw my own conclusions. There is very little of that left nowadays.

    As for climate change, can we leave it up to science and not fence politics? I certainly wouldn’t go to Maddow or Beck for a definite answer on the question. Beck is just a cult leader. I had an interesting exchange with someone I used to know. I said that I did watch Beck to keep an eye on him and that I thought it was a good idea to keep an eye on anyone that inflammatory and that influential to so many. That statement enraged the person and they made some comment about keeping an eye on us kool aid drinkers.

    Hell, I hadn’t even mentioned cult or that I thought Beck was a wing nut. Just the above. I thought I was being polite. He is influential and he is inflammatory by his own admission.

    It was after the ‘us’ remark that i really did decide this person who no longer speaks to me was a cult follower. She also stores food. I rest my case.

  16. Pat.Herve

    cargo – I put the beck link in there, to show how flagrant beck was in the slice-n-dice of the maddow clip. If she did the same thing, shame on her, but on Global Warming, beck is a grand flip flopper – he pokes fun at and mocks the Global Warming crowd, but at other times, he says he believes that Global Warming does exist. Makes no sense to me.

  17. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    So you use HuffPo to discredit Fox News? That’s rich!

  18. More about Texas: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256616/no-paul-krugman-texas-not-broke-kevin-d-williamson

    Pat, Beck does not believe that MAN MADE global warming exists. He has stated that it MAY actually be warming, but due to natural reasons such as solar activity.

  19. Slowpoke Rodriguez :

    So you use HuffPo to discredit Fox News? That’s rich!

    Why not? Just about anything can be used to discredit Faux News as far as objectivity goes.

  20. Pat.Herve

    slow – I used the huff link to show how beck will cut out pertinent information to try and make his point. There are times that I agree with beck, and then there are times that he goes off the conspiracy cliff, or the fringes of reality.

    cargo – page 3 – http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20100219/ENTERTAINMENT01/100218001/Don-t-judge-Beck-by-his-cover

    It is easier to keep an audience in tune when you are hyping things in the negative – is it harder to keep people in tune with a positive message. Just think, when you have a positive experience with a retailer, do you call and tell them about it? But if you have a bad experience, you will call and complain about it.

  21. That’s a great article. However, Beck didn’t cut out the pertinent info. Maddow did. Beck, in THAT monologue said that one storm doesn’t disprove or prove anything. Beck was just making a joke about the snowstorm and mocking the AGW crowd. The funny thing is that the snowstorms do provide evidence that the AGW crowd was wrong. They predicted that snow would end by now. Oops.

    Beck is trying to put out a positive message now. Think about it. He’s telling people that to change their situation, their very country, its not about politicians, or parties. He’s telling them that THEY have to change. He tells them to get off their butts, educate themselves, and get active.

    Even Oprah doesn’t do that. Heck, even Dr. Phil doesn’t go that far.

  22. Just think what a show would be like if President Obama went on Beck’s show.

    He could make a two hour special. They could have competing chalk boards. Beck could bribe Obama with burgers and junk food since he’s away from Michelle.

  23. You know, further thought on a Beck show….

    He has enough fans that an Obama interview by Beck, if it wasn’t on the same channel, would cut into Super Bowl ratings……..

Comments are closed.