White House Officials Continue Their Offensive with Fox News

Leading White House advisers took the offense today in their battle with Fox News by putting on a blitz on the morning news shows.

Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN's John King on "State of the Union" that Fox "is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."

"It’s not so much a conflict with Fox News. I suppose the way to look at it and the way … the president looks at it, we look at it is: It’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. And that’s a different take. And more importantly, is not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization …

"While it’s clear what the White House and what [White House communications director]Anita [Dunn] said, I mean the concentration of the White House isn’t about what Fox is doing. It’s a concentration about what does it take to make sure the economy’s moving, creating jobs, helping the economy grow, making sure that we responsibly withdraw from Iraq, making sure the decisions we make on Afghanistan: We ask the questions before we go ahead first into 20 - 40,000 more troops on the line, and America’s reputation, … it’s young men and women, and its resources — that’s what’s occupying the decisions and the time in the White House.”

White House senior adviser David Axelrod told George Stephanopoulos today on ABC's "This Week" that Fox News isn't a real news organization.

"Mr. [Rupert] Murdoch has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money. The only argument Anita was making is that they’re not really a news station if you watch even — it’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming.

"It’s really not news — it’s pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate but understanding that they represent a point of view.”

Kurtz Looks at Obama Press Conferences and Their Value to the Networks

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz this morning examines the value of President Obama's news conferences both from the perspective of the major networks and their overall news value. He also looks at how Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel went to the top of the ladder to persuade the networks to broadcast the most recent event.

Rather than calling ABC, the White House chief of staff phoned Bob Iger, chief executive of parent company Disney. Instead of contacting NBC, Emanuel went to Jeffrey Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric. He also spoke with Les Moonves, the chief executive of CBS, the company spun off from Viacom.

Whether this amounted to undue pressure or plain old Chicago arm-twisting, Emanuel got results: the fourth hour of lucrative network time for his boss in six months. But network executives have been privately complaining to White House officials that they cannot afford to keep airing these sessions in the current economic downturn.

The networks "absolutely" feel pressured, says Paul Friedman, CBS's senior vice president: "It's an enormous financial cost when the president replaces one of those prime-time hours. The news divisions also have mixed feelings about whether they are being used."

But are the events worth it to the networks?

The financial stakes are considerable. ABC, CBS and NBC have given up as much as $40 million in advertising revenue to carry this year's East Room events. "We lose more than $3 million a show," Moonves told Mediaweek. The Fox broadcast network has declined to carry the last two Obama sessions.

Every president exercises considerable control over his encounters with reporters, picking on selected journalists and deflecting questions he doesn't like. But Obama's discursive style has also tended to depress the news value of the sessions.

He began the last one with an eight-minute opening statement. His answer to the first question, including a follow-up, lasted more than seven minutes. All told, the lengthy responses allowed time for only 10 reporters to be recognized. And Obama's professorial style of explaining policy at length, rather than offering punchy sound bites, may serve him well, but rarely yields dramatic headlines.

One result: The audience is gradually dwindling. The last presser drew 24 million viewers, a significant number but a 50 percent decline from Obama's first such event in February.