Who Runs Gov

The Plum LineGreg Sargent's blog

White House Not Taking Rupert Murdoch’s “Racist” Bait

An interesting twist in the White House-Fox News wars…

The White House is not grabbing at what may be the biggest, juiciest piece of Fox bait of all: Rupert Murdoch’s claim that Glenn Beck was right to say Obama’s a “racist.”

In case you missed it, Murdoch, in an interview with Sky News, basically endorsed Beck’s claims, in which he said Obama’s comment about the Cambridge police showed a “deep seated hatred of white people.” Said Murdoch: “He did make a very racist comment.”

The White House has yet to respond. Outgoing White House communications director Anita Dunn, one of the most aggressive anti-Fox warriors, didn’t return an email for comment. A second spokesperson declined comment.

The White House allies in this fight, such as Media Matters, are in full-blown response mode. But nothing yet from White House officials.

Does the White House want to dial down this feud? You couldn’t ask for a more perfect opening than having the owner of the network endorse the claim that the president has a “deep seated hatred of white people.” Plus, this relative quiet comes after the White House signaled that it had “no issue” with Dems going on the network.

Perhaps the White House will respond eventually, and maybe this doesn’t mean anything. But you can bet that if the White House wanted a response out there, it would be out there. Seems noteworthy.

********************************************

Update: Or maybe, as some commenters point out, the White House doesn’t like to argue over race, and just has no intention of taking Murdoch’s bait.

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

Posted by Greg Sargent | 11/10/2009, 04:07 PM EST | Categories: White House, political media

55 Responses

  1. oddjob | November 10th, 2009 at 04:09 pm

    Not Taking Rupert Murdoch’s “Racist” Bait

    Not surprised.

  2. Michael C. | November 10th, 2009 at 04:09 pm

    They don’t need to respond. This merely proves their point.

  3. Greg Sargent | November 10th, 2009 at 04:13 pm

    there was a time that they would have responded, I’d argue.

  4. Benton | November 10th, 2009 at 04:16 pm

    Oh, they’ll respond to scummy Rupert’s brash stupidity in due time, when it best suits them — when the particular moment is to their greatest political advantage. The Obamans are not amateurs, Just wait, and watch….

    Focks Noose won’t know what hit it.

  5. Tena | November 10th, 2009 at 04:21 pm

    “The Obamans are not amateurs, Just wait, and watch….

    Focks Noose won’t know what hit it.”

    :)

  6. mike from Arlington | November 10th, 2009 at 04:23 pm

    They don’t have to. Murdoch saying the President is racist does enough damage to Murdoch.

    It would be like fighting a clansman on the street who’s running around in white sheets. You aren’t going to get anywhere arguing with the guy. He’s already making a complete *** of himself all on his own.

  7. jzap | November 10th, 2009 at 04:23 pm

    Blame Australia?

  8. Tena | November 10th, 2009 at 04:23 pm

    Soo – why did Rupert say it? I don’t think he says things for no reason.

  9. Ned | November 10th, 2009 at 04:28 pm

    I’m with Mike. It’s actually one of those rare accusations in the political sphere that’s so self-evidently ludicrous that the most damaging thing you can do to the speaker is just let it stand on its own.

    I mean, you could argue otherwise by comparing it to the Swift Boat Vets incident, where Kerry’s refusal to dignify it with a response early on sunk him. But even by the low standards of plausibility set by those guys, Murdoch is just embarrassing himself.

  10. Tena | November 10th, 2009 at 04:29 pm

    “there was a time that they would have responded, I’d argue.”

    I’m not so sure. They’ve tried to stay out of the racial stuff as much as possible.

  11. Bernie Latham | November 10th, 2009 at 04:35 pm

    Not unrelated… “Lawsuit alleges that New York Post DC bureau chief’s goal was ‘to destroy’ Obama”
    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/10/post-destroy-obama/

  12. Tena | November 10th, 2009 at 04:35 pm

    It’s so patently ridiculous a thing to say -his white grandparents raised him. His mother was white. When has he ever evinced any rancor at all toward any race?

  13. holyhandgrenaid | November 10th, 2009 at 04:38 pm

    jzap-

    That’s not fair. I’m pretty sure Australia has apologized to the world for the whole Murdoch thing.

  14. Tena | November 10th, 2009 at 04:41 pm

    Where were the major newspapers who were out to destroy Bush?

    roflmao!

  15. Tena | November 10th, 2009 at 04:42 pm

    Yeah, that awful liberal media.

  16. jzap | November 10th, 2009 at 04:42 pm

    Holy:  Well, I guess you have a point.  But still, I can’t help but wonder:  What would Brian Boitano do?

  17. Rick Massimo | November 10th, 2009 at 04:45 pm

    “But he (Obama) did make a very racist comment. Ahhh — about, you know, blacks and whites and so on, and which he said in his campaign he would be completely above.”

    Murdoch hasn’t got the first f’ing clue what Obama said. But he’ll call the president a racist anyway. Why not? It’s Fox – all shots are free. There’s literally nothing they can’t say that will cost them their 23% or America.

  18. Tena | November 10th, 2009 at 04:48 pm

    So Rupert said it to appease the base.

  19. Chris- The Fold | November 10th, 2009 at 04:52 pm

    There’s no reason for the WH to comment. What better point could the WH stress than the one Murdoch just made?

    There’s really nothing left to be said.

  20. BBQ | November 10th, 2009 at 04:58 pm

    @Greg

    Slow news day? I mean, I know that the WH v. FOX story is a pet issue of this blog…but you’re posting on the LACK of a response now? That’s a bit of a stretch.

    Many times, we have seen officials in the WH and Congress issue “no comment” before eventually going on the record.

  21. Ethan | November 10th, 2009 at 05:00 pm

    [from the previous thread]

    QB said: “I am well adjusted, clear thinking, rational, and attendant to truth”

    That’s just so obviously false.

    From now on I expect all of your posts to be “clear thinking, rational, and attendant to the truth.”

    That means you will need to provide information or data to back up all of your claims. All of them. And any opinions not grounded in factual information are to be recognized as such.

    Let’s see if you are what you say you are. I doubt you can last 24 hours without going back on that assertion.

  22. sbj | November 10th, 2009 at 05:00 pm

    Why would the White House want to draw attention to a Murdoch interview on Sky News? I wouldn’t have known of it (like 99% of the population) if Greg hadn’t drawn attention to it. The admin has (correctly) calculated that there is no way to win this battle with FNC. The LAST thing they want to do is draw attention to this.

  23. Andy | November 10th, 2009 at 05:01 pm

    If I were Robert Gibbs I would keep an eye on how many times that “Murdoch call the President a racist” story appears on Newscorp TV and print outlets. Then next week when the President gets back from Asia and I get asked about the WH’s reaction to the comment, I could mention are surprise that the story appeared only ____ on newscorp media.

  24. Sherrie | November 10th, 2009 at 05:02 pm

    When it comes to race the White House pretty much says “no comment” so this doesn’t surprise me.

    When Glen Beck said the comment he did in July the White House then said “no comment”.

    Obama and his team rarely addresses race.

  25. Andy | November 10th, 2009 at 05:04 pm

    edited…

    If I were Robert Gibbs I would keep an eye on how many times that “Murdoch calls the President a racist” story appears on Newscorp TV and print outlets. Then next week when the President gets back from Asia and I get asked about the WH’s reaction to the comment, I could mention our surprise that the story appeared only ____ times on newscorp media.

  26. lmsinca | November 10th, 2009 at 05:07 pm

    Bernie, why am I not surprised by any of this. Their propaganda works quite well on those who are susceptible to conspiracy theories, racism, cynical interpretations of policy, “end of days” fundamentalism, and all the rest.

    Luckily for us, their audiences for both the paper and Fox are a relatively small minority compared to the rest of America. Once again, it angers me that so few have so much control in propagating this cr@p, and that people can’t see through their hogwash.

  27. Chris- The Fold | November 10th, 2009 at 05:15 pm

    @ sbj, you are an idiot. Run and hide, run and hide.

  28. lmsinca | November 10th, 2009 at 05:16 pm

    Bernie, here’s part of a letter sent by James Rucker, remember Color of Change, to Murdoch regarding both Glenn Beck and the paper.

    “It has been an open question as to whether or not News Corporation or FOX News would rein in Glenn Beck. It seems that we may now have our answer. Since his attack on the president, Beck’s pattern of race-baiting has continued unabated. Perhaps he feels so secure spouting this outrageous rhetoric, Mr. Murdoch, because you personally agree with his most inflammatory statements.

    While Beck is the worst offender on the Fox News Channel, your network has a long, deep history of engaging in inflammatory racial rhetoric: attacking black leaders, black culture, and black institutions. And a number of your recent business decisions suggest that you’re consciously building a media empire — at Fox News and elsewhere — that attracts viewers by appealing to racial fear and paranoia.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/colorofchange-to-murdoch_b_352125.html

  29. Rhoda | November 10th, 2009 at 05:24 pm

    The White House can’t win on race. The Gates matter is a clear example of this. And even when in the right, as they are in this matter, the elevation of race as a topic poisons the well with independents who DON’T want a race fight but jobs and then health care.

    If they respond, Murdoch hits them for calling him a racist and then hits them w/the Gates story.

    It’s a massive circle jerk that the media will run with for days undercutting all other messages.

    Better to stay quite and let the incident, as clear as this is, speak for itself.

  30. Travis | November 10th, 2009 at 05:39 pm

    Knowing when not to engage is as much a part of fighting a successful war as knowing when to engage.

    They’re right to let Fox hang themselves on this one. I hope they continue to not respond to it.

    If for some reason it wasn’t clear before, Fox’s bias will certainly be apparent to most observers now. It’s a self-driven story that the White House doesn’t need to further along.

    The best thing they can do on this is keep saying “no comment.”

  31. Greg Sargent | November 10th, 2009 at 05:41 pm

    Evening roundup posted, all:

    http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/happy-hour-roundup-110/

  32. movetotheright | November 10th, 2009 at 06:53 pm

    Actually, Murdoch was wrong. Obama does not just have a deep seated hatred for white people, he hates the American People, period. If he is a racist, which is likely after his comment on the police after Gates got arrested, that’s just the cherry on top.

    As for Obama answering Murdoch’s atatement, Obama won’t answer, he’ll just pull Murdoch’s FCC license. That is what’s coming next, right?

  33. Bernie Latham | November 10th, 2009 at 07:31 pm

    Imsinca – thanks for that letter, I hadn’t seen it.

    Murdoch is some species of psychopath. Causing harm, potentially great harm, is clearly of no consequence to him so long as his personal power and wealth are facilitated.

  34. Bernie Latham | November 10th, 2009 at 07:39 pm

    As regards the issue of how or whether the WH ought to engage Murdoch/FOX…I expect they’ll continue much as they’ve done with Limbaugh. That is, they’ll point to what these people are up to in order to shift media/citizen attention to the nature of their game (as contrasted with what they do and say while playing that game). We ought to note that after this strategy was implemented, Limbaugh has taken a much lower profile (no recent invitations to debate the President, for example).

  35. Dr Dawson | November 10th, 2009 at 09:21 pm

    What do you mean, “was a racist.” He is a racist and turning it on us if we disagree with his communist appointees, socialsit agenda, marxist economy. He is a treasonous President and should be tried for treason and punished according to war time laws. He goes against the Amber Grains of America. Read the Constitution, then read Obama’s book, ” The Audasity of Hope.” The book is basically a personal view of how he would like America to be a socialist country. Almost to Hitler’s , “Mine Kumpf” Get informed and you deside. Conservatives believe in that. Liberals use deceptive journalist propaganda to hide their true objective and that is to destroy America and the Constitution. All bill currently being pushed through without being read by anybody is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and are using them as trojan horses to fool people it’s for the poor and uninsured and for the good of the people. In reality, they’re playing on your ignorance to the constitutional law. Wake up A

  36. lmsinca | November 10th, 2009 at 09:33 pm

    Bernie

    I’m keeping an eye open all the time as you are, for the Murdoch, Armey, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh Tea Party, not because I think it’s some sort of conspiracy, I don’t, but because I think it’s a fascinating plunge into the psyche of these intellectually challenged personalities who have no idea what it means to be a contributing member of society. Wow, that was a really long sentence, sorry.

    I’m glad you thought the letter was interesting, I sort of have a crush on Rucker, but I’m easily crushable.

  37. lmsinca | November 10th, 2009 at 09:35 pm

    Dr.Dawson, I suggest you get a life, you need some new material as all of you arguments have been debunked.

  38. Chris | November 10th, 2009 at 10:27 pm

    The President must be thrilled that the crazy tin foil hat crowd currently represents the Conservative movement. What happened to the Republican Party of Dwight Eisenhower?

  39. oddjob | November 10th, 2009 at 10:58 pm

    if we disagree with his communist appointees, socialsit agenda, marxist economy

    LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You don’t even know what the words mean if you think the present administration intends communist outcomes!

  40. oddjob | November 10th, 2009 at 10:59 pm

    As to the rest, given the popularity of Social Security, the single greatest anti-poverty program in American history, I suggest if you find such intolerably socialist that you move to a desert island, or a dictatorship more to your liking.

  41. oddjob | November 10th, 2009 at 11:02 pm

    @Rhoda | November 10th, 2009 at 05:24 pm

    Exactly.

  42. Gasman | November 11th, 2009 at 01:19 am

    As if any additional proof were needed, Oberführer Murdoch has confirmed that FauxNews’ race baiting strategy comes straight from the top. This gave boycotters that much more reason to go after FauxNews as a whole and not just Beck.

    It also made life that much more difficult for those advertisers who want to stay on FauxNews. They risk being seen as traitorous racists by continuing to buy airtime on FauxNews.

  43. Gasman | November 11th, 2009 at 02:18 am

    Dr. Dawson,
    What is your “doctorate” in? Misspelling?

    Do notice anything wrong with the following: socialsit, Audasity, Mine Kumpf, deside?

    The occasional error can be overlooked, but you are pathological. Hitler wrote a book called “Mein Kampf” not “Mine Kumpf.” You transcend error and go right for ignorant.

    And what the h*ll does “He goes against the Amber Grains of America” even mean? How does one go “with the Amber Grains of America?”

    Cut back on whatever you are smoking or snorting, cause it’s starting to rot your brain.

  44. jgrim | November 11th, 2009 at 07:35 am

    Whether Obama is a racist or not is not the point. Rupert’s trying to stoke sales and increase viewership by starting a war on words with the WH. If he wasn’t calling Obama a racist, he’d be calling him something else. He wants Fox to set the tone and define the issues, not the Obama WH. The WH isn’t taking the bait.

    However, the WH beat Fox to the frame game early by calling them what they were- a propaganda arm of the Repuglican party. After the MSM’s wailing and gnashing of teeth over freedom of the press,their tantrums died down. And the WH argument that Fox is an illegitimate news source remains.
    I predict real journalists will distance themselves from their vitriol & lies and let Fox fade to white noise in the news milieu.

  45. woody | November 11th, 2009 at 10:00 am

    Obama’s election already has proven to be an enormous boon to the profitability of Murdoch’s propaganda enterprises.

    He doesn’t need Obama to respond. He gets all the bang he needs from the accusation, and the coverage of it.

    Ads that were so publically removed from Beck’s excrescences were merely moved to other shows. And there was never an ad slot on Beck that went unfilled.

  46. Kevin | November 11th, 2009 at 10:12 am

    Team Obama won’t do anything to divert attention from the nation’s business, until they’re ready. If they ever care. It isn’t like this stuff is a top priority.

    FOX news and the Republicans have the advantage of not having anything better to do but play media/political games all day long.

    Obama has to try and fix the world.

  47. Kevin | November 11th, 2009 at 10:15 am

    BTW, FOX News ratings flat. War with White House did nothing to help them.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/200911030008

  48. Kevin | November 11th, 2009 at 10:16 am

    More here

    http://mediamatters.org/columns/200911030004

  49. cwolf | November 11th, 2009 at 11:08 am

    Can’t we find some way to deport that alien, Murdoch?

    His application for and oath of US citizenship are a sham and ought to be revoked.
    He can then be deported like any other Alien who snuck or lied his way into America.

  50. paperbackroddy | November 11th, 2009 at 11:37 am

    Rupert Murdoch..you are a stupid white man with money…We’re headed for trouble

  51. Texas Aggie | November 11th, 2009 at 12:44 pm

    A few years back there was an Australian political party whose only raison d’etre was hostility towards nonCaucasians. It was solidly defeated in the polls and hasn’t been heard of since. It may be that Murdoch was one of their sugar daddies. It would be interesting to look into that.

  52. Gasman | November 11th, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    I cannot fathom Murdoch’s business model for FauxNews. At best, about 7% of Americans are FauxNews viewers. That share is not likely to grow. Why would you intentionally limit your market – and thus your potential revenues – by excluding more than 90% of your available audience? Furthermore, I would bet that the demographics of FauxNews viewers are not highly educated, affluent, with lots of disposable income. They are probably among the lowest in all three categories.

    Murdoch’s militant anti-Obama attitude only makes sense when viewed from the perspective of racial bigotry. Murdoch is so racist that he cannot stand the sight of a black man in the White House.

  53. Texas Aggie | November 11th, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    I read “Dr.” Dawson’s screed and the first thing that occurred to me was Dr. (?). What exactly is “Dr.” supposed to mean? The person couldn’t have graduated from any English speaking university because none of them would have tolerated the way Dawson totally fractures the English language. You can’t spell that badly and show so much ignorance of reality and be able to graduate from high school.

  54. News Reference | November 11th, 2009 at 01:56 pm

    At best Murdoch’s Fox Republican Propaganda gets less than 2% of the country watching on average and has never peaked above 3%.

    Considering that Fox Fictional News isn’t a real “news” channel, comparing it’s numbers to actual news channels is like comparing apples and oranges.

    That Rupert Murdoch would come out in support of the criminally sick mind of Glenn Beck isn’t surprising, Murdoch has NO loyalty to anything other than money and Beck’s murderous fantasies are disturbingly popular amongst the right wing extremists.

    Murdoch’s Fox Terrorist Media Network has been consistently encouraging violence for years.

    Murdoch’s Fox puppet Glenn Beck has repeatedly fantasized about murdering Americans, Murdoch’s Fox puppet Bill O’Reilly encouraged a terrorist attack on America, Murdoch’s right wing extremist guests have said even crazier things.

    Perhaps more disturbing than the violence encouraged by Murdoch’s right wing Foxes is that it’s increasingly difficult to tell if Fox is just a Republican propaganda outlet or if Murdoch’s Foxes are the ones pulling the strings of the right wing Republican Teabagging Party.

    Republican Leader Limbaugh has apparently been displaced by the mad hatter of the right wing teabaggers: Murdoch’s Fox puppet Glenn Beck.

    (To keep some perspective, though, Glenn Beck barely cracks 1%.)

  55. Ken | November 11th, 2009 at 02:18 pm

    It sounds like he wants the 50+ advertisers that requested time changes from Beck’s show to completely dump his station. That way he can claim victim hood under the “oppressive Obama regime” that wishes to squash “the (his) truth”.

    I say we fire up the boycott machine and fire it off at all advertisers on his stations. All of them. National and local. Let even your local businesses know you will not be using their services if they advertise on Fox. Stop watching all programing on Fox. Not that most of it is not **** anyway but why give them any numbers. Stop buying his newspapers, listening to his radio stations and going to any movies produced by any company he owns. See how fast he can change his attitude when he looses 60% of his customers.

Leave a Reply


Please email us at profiles@whorunsgov.com to bring to our attention any content or conduct that you believe violates our Discussion and Submission Policy.