Should Obama talk to Hannity or Limbaugh?
 

I've caught a few minutes of these talk shows on the radio last week and both of them would like Obama to come on. Probably because their ratings would be triple what they usually are. But Obama would be able to talk to a group of people who he needs to win over. Or that group will nitpick every little thing he does wrong without offering a real plan to fix the problems in a way that is fair for all, not just the people who have been successful in the past 8 years.

I also thought Bush should have gone on The Daily Show or SNL. They would have made a few jokes, but he could have explained what his plans were to a large group of people that didn't always hear the other side of the reason behind things.

Or have these people already made up their minds and it would be too risky to go on any of these 'gotcha' media shows?

There's no such thing as "gotcha journalism". Palin was and is a complete idiot, and when confronted with even easy questions she made a deer in headlights look like it was giving arguments to support it's doctoral thesis. "What newspapers do you read?" "Um...err..."

Obama isn't stupid. He can answer questions, be they good or bad.

he already went on O'Reilly and came off really well, I thought. it's easy for the hot-heads to criticize all morning when the guy isn't there to defend himself. i'd imagine Hannity would be far more willing to have him on than Rush

I don't know. Part of me thinks that the illusions that Rush peddles would require that he stay as far away from portraying Obama as an actual person.

Hannity? That might be interesting. I'd like to see Obama on Hannity.

I think a Hannity appearance would be much like the O'Reilly one. First, it would be taped and edited, not live. Second, Hannity would suddenly become extremely respectful and not so much of a blowhard. Of course he'd trash him later...

I think if he did do something like this it would have to be live and unedited that way they couldn't snip out the 10 words that offend them and ignore the rest of the hour.

I'd like to see him go on Hannity, just because Limbaugh makes me laugh when I look at him. And that would be distracting.

Then Obama needs to go on Real Time With Bill Maher, sitting right next to Sam Harris and Roseanne Barr.

Obama needs to run the country, he's got plenty on his plate without engaging in comedy shows. He should stay away from side show freaks on both ends of the US political extreme.

QFT. I'll just leave it at that in honor of the super boll.

Yes, but I think if he's officially asked to go on either he pretty much has to say yes, or else he'll be painted as a "coward who's afraid of coming on my show".

In that case, I formally invite the POTUS to TFP.

make sure it's a certified letter so you know if he got it

what tully and ms media said.

let them float into irrelevance on their own.

unfortunately, these idiots have a pretty decent influence on a lot of public thought. I think it's worth playing ball with them if you can set the right conditions. they are going to pan you either way, so it's a matter of whether you want them to do it with impunity or if you want to defend yourself

the ideological situation is changing around these nitwits.
so there's no reason to help them stay afloat by breaking the heremtic space they've constructed. limbaugh in particular.

live by the sword, die by the sword.

Obama's actions will speak for themselves. Reaching out to the far right in the media without changing his politics will not make any progress.

I view it as the duty of journalists and alternative media sources in the US to cirticize government officials. Keeps us actively engaged in the political process. Gives us something to think and talk about.

For the record - while I don't enjoy listening to Hannity and Limbaugh, I do think they have the concept of freedom of speech down pat.

No. There would be no point to it. Also, haven't we had enough of Obama's rhetoric? I think the nation would be better served if he started trying to do what he said he was going to do. The sooner that happens the sooner we can get people focused on what is real rather than general platitudes. He is going to change the culture in Washington??? He issues an executive order on lobbyist then picks a guy like Daschle who was paid $5 million by a private equity group including $220,000 coming from the healthcare industry, oh and let's not forget this is another guy who can't figure out how to do his taxes. We don't need Hannity or Limbaugh for him to address these kinds of contradictions between his rhetoric and what is happening under his watch.

nice that you're focused on the big picture ace.
jesus.

For the time being, Limbaugh and Orly have large, neoliberal audiences. The neoliberals are Obama's stanchest critics. Should Obama really just ignore them? Isn't that what Clinton did?

Nope, not at all, after listening to shrub stumble through one syllable words for 8 years, it's nice to see America has a president who can speak properly.

I think the cognitive dissonance here is based on the fact that some folks consider Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to be journalists.

I fully support Obama being vocal and visible to the public sector, but I think it would be a huge mistake (both politically and - to my mind - in the much wider sense of our society's very legitimacy) to validate these morons by giving them the President of the US to yammer on with. To do so will be a capitulation to crass vulgarism that makes me sick to think of.

I also don't like the sense of people being proud of our president because he can 'talk good.' All of the presidents I know of up to GW did indeed 'talk good' to an acceptable extent - some better than others. GW was an aberration and it does the office a disservice to measure its literacy against the presidential equivalent of the dodo bird.

They're given legitimacy by their viewers/listeners, and there are enough of them that Rush and Bill being ignored can't marginalize them. It emboldens them by allowing them the dishonest claim that they're somehow too real or too honest for the president.

If BillO only got a few hundred thousand viewers (instead of the several million he regularly gets), then I'd say ignore him. If Rush was only aired regionally (instead of internationally), I'd say ignore him. Let's just be honest, though. People listen to them. Old people, especially. And these people all vote.

Am I the only one who finds Hannity far more annoying and vapid than Limbaugh? Don't get me wrong, Limbaugh is annoying and vapid as well, but it's no contest in my mind who wins the Conservative Bill Maher Award.

I'd prefer someone halfway decent, like Medved or Beck. But I'd have no real complaints if Obama just avoided the talk show circuit altogether.
-----Added 2/2/2009 at 03 : 07 : 54-----
Christ, I don't like Limbaugh, but he really, really doesn't need anyone's help in staying afloat. He'll do fine.

Yeah, I'm right there with you FTA. I don't know exactly why, but Hannity does manage to somehow be more annoying than Rush. Maybe it's because we actually have to see his smug, arrogant face when he talks? Rush is just some annoying voice over the radio.

Yes, that's probably it: Hannity offends more senses.

It could also be that you felt badly for centrist Colms.

+ 1.


Also, why intentionally sit on a bed of ants when you can avoid it?

I don't care how many morons hang on their every word, that doesn't make them legitimate as journalists or as the moderators of circumspect public opinion. I care about the level and legitimacy of discourse in this country, don't you?

I may not have the same definition of journalism as a professional journalist might have. I consider anyone who reports any form of news in a media outlet, no matter how biased, to be a journalist.

I'd like for you to clarify your definition of journalism a bit more, mixedmedia. I am embarassed about my confusion on the matter.

If Obama were to respond at all to the Limbaughs and Hannitys, I would suggest he invite a group of the "talk show" personalities from across the political spectrum to the WH and take questions for 15 minutes and tell them all they are free to air it on their shows with the hope that his responses will not be edited for political expediency.
-----Added 2/2/2009 at 06 : 37 : 54-----
I would sugges the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, most notably when considering "talk show" personalities:
IMO, editorial writers, talk show personalities, most so-called "news" bloggers and other self-proclaimed opinion makers are not journalists.

But one could suggest that few journalists meet all the standards in the code.

On a regular basis. If he can talk to Iran, why shouldn't he talk to Rush. To serve the national interest, right? I think Obama should make the rounds with a few of the top conservative pundits on a weekly basis and talk publicly about the fundamentals - and not-so-fundamentals - of contemporary politics, and the state and nature of the world these politics operate within. Sunday morning punditry, without the pundits. Straight to the source. This country needs to be made more aware of world politics in an increasingly interconnected world.

Are you really suggesting that Limbaugh and Hannity are a better or more objective 'source" or outlet to raise awareness of "world politics" than the pundits?

I'm not sure anything more than further polarization would result by sitting with either. Both sides will claim victory and continue the divide.

If he sat with a major conservative player, I think the # 3 (conservative talk) Glenn Beck would be the best choice. Limbaugh and Hannity are Republican and very partisan. Independent (conservative/libertarian-leaning) Beck seems to be willing to engage in true conversation. Granted, he doesn't agree with Obama's politics (as with Bush's), but he respects political leaders that truly believe what they say. He seems to have a more moderate following and is usually willing give people of opposing views room to make their point...as long as they come to exchange, not spin.

The problem Obama may have in the Beck arena is that he (Beck) is hard to predict.

Thank you for following up on that in my absence, dc.

That is exactly what I am referring to. Used to be, there was a bar of legitimacy and at least a semblance of neutrality that one had to meet in order to be taken seriously as a journalist.

It's sad to see yet another stake in the underpinning of American culture be so willingly flushed down the toilet.

I agree they're morons. Believe me, I know. They're morons that vote, though. They're the morons that could mean the difference between Obama 2012 and Palin 2012. If President Obama speaking directly to these people can in even a small way reduce the number of right wing extremists, it's worth a try.

Doesn't matter who, any prominent figure who can articulate conservative values and viewpoints.

MM.....Somehow, while we were sleeping, our "respected" news reporters morphed from Edward R Murrow, Walter Cronkite and even investigative print journalists like Jack Anderson to... Limbaugh, Hannity and townhall.com.

Bring back:

http://www.humorgazette.com/images/13-baxter.jpg

lol. yez, stop the world, I want to get off.

the problem with limbaugh is not that his audience is stupid--i don't think that's the case---the problem with limbaugh is that he offers 3-4 hours of entirely self-enclosed infotainment based largely on riffing from newspaper articles and other published material that he cycles through, interpersed with little comedy segments and such. but it's infotainment. and he's good at it. it makes little sense to underestimate the guy because you disagree with his politics--and i totally disagree with his politics. but he's good at what he does.

personally, i think he is an important element in what was the conservative ideological system. i think his influence on it has still not been entirely appreciated. for example, when the right was in opposition last time out, under clinton, limbaugh was able to perfect a self-enclosed, self-referential little world made up entirely of glosses on other's people's research. people seemed drawn to its internal coherence---but most of the folk i know who were sucked into that world were sucked into it because they found it entertaining. the comedy lead, the politics followed--the self-enclosed character of the world limbaugh made was of a piece with the dissociative conservative politics he advanced and so on and so on.

i don't see any reason for obama to interact with limbaugh. i don't see anyt reason for limbaugh to interact with obama either--limbaugh never allows coherent oppositional voices on his program. if you know that's the case, why would you bother?


i don't see limbaugh as a journalist--i see him as a smart and effective entertainer who happens to be quite good at articulating a kind of politics i find to be beneath contempt.


hannity, on the other hand, is just a fool.

I watched a segment of Hannity last night and it really was beyond belief. They were discussing the woman with the octuplets, and it devolved into a jihad on the welfare system

the big picture to me is not who interviews Obama but what he does:

Daschle unfit to serve | CharlotteObserver.com

If Obama is a man of his word he will do just fine, otherwise the attacks will never stop.

ace, darling, you're recycling of the conservative talking points of the minute really isn't interesting.
i don't know who you folks imagine you're talking to, where you think you're getting any traction.
and your post is a non-sequitor.