Having just read this article by the New York Times, I find myself in almost total disagreement. In particular, I find that I'm on the other side of this statement:
I do agree with this statement:
People who work in political communications have pointed out that it is a principle of power dynamics to “punch up “ — that is, to take on bigger foes, not smaller ones.The article suggests that Obama should not take on the "smaller" Fox news, but focus on bigger issues. I believe this is somewhat short-sided. What is more important than about 48% of the electorate? No, I'm not suggesting that 48% of the voting public watches the stupidity that comes out of Fox news. However, the ridiculous theories presented on Fox news can seep into the minds of some of the conservative base of the 48% (by conservative I mean smart conservative, which might mean only 1% of 48%). Perhaps the problem is bigger...?
I do agree with this statement:
The American presidency was conceived as a corrective to the royals, but trading punches with cable shouters seems a bit too common. Perhaps it’s time to restore a little imperiousness to the relationship.It is true that the president should focus on bigger things. But again, similar to McCarthy-era tactics, Fox should be taken on and removed as an information source - even in the minds of the morons that watch the network...
Comments