Balkinization: The Rise and Fall of the Terrorist Fist Bump

The Rise and Fall of the Terrorist Fist Bump

From a Vanity Fair story on Rupert Murdoch:

Obama, on the other hand, was snubbing Murdoch. Every time he reached out (Murdoch executives tried to get the Kennedys to help smooth the way to an introduction), nothing. The Fox stain was on Murdoch.

It wasn’t until early in the summer that Obama relented and a secret courtesy meeting was arranged. The meeting began with Murdoch sitting down, knee to knee with Obama, at the Waldorf-Astoria. The younger man was deferential—and interested in his story. Obama pursued: What was Murdoch’s relationship with his father? How had he gotten from Adelaide to the top of the world?

Murdoch, for his part, had a simple thought to share with Obama. He had known possibly as many heads of state as anyone living today—had met every American president from Harry Truman on—and this is what he understood: nobody got much time to make an impression. Leadership was about what you did in the first six months.

Then, after he said his piece, Murdoch switched places and let his special guest, Roger Ailes, sit knee to knee with Obama.

Obama lit into Ailes. He said that he didn’t want to waste his time talking to Ailes if Fox was just going to continue to abuse him and his wife, that Fox had relentlessly portrayed him as suspicious, foreign, fearsome—just short of a terrorist.

Ailes, unruffled, said it might not have been this way if Obama had more willingly come on the air instead of so often giving Fox the back of his hand.

A tentative truce, which may or may not have vast historical significance, was at that moment agreed upon.

This Thursday, Obama is scheduled to appear on Bill O'Reilly.

Posted 8:48 AM by JB [link]

Comments:

Hasn't the "Fox said it was a terrorist fist bump" story been completely debunked? Does Jack do anything but repeat Democrat lies?

# posted by

Thomas : 9:04 AM

Obama is actually going to try to fence with Bill O'Reilly?

Unless the powers that be at Fox have told O'Reilly to back off, this will be the last time Obama appears on Fox. The Messiah does not like to be vigorously challenged and looks like a fool when he is because he cannot think on his feet. For example, see the Couric interview of Obama during his rock star tour of the Middle East.

Obama backed out of town hall meetings with McCain because he cannot think on his feet as demonstrated by his crash and burn at the Saddleback forum.

What could he possibly be thinking going on The Factor???

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:16 AM

Good heavens, Obama has scheduled this for Thursday just before the McCain speech!

Perfect.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:19 AM

What could he possibly be thinking going on The Factor???

# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:16 AM

He probably thinks that your "evaluation" of the situation is a rightwingnut delusion.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 9:58 AM

I predicted humorously in 2006 that Murdoch would ditch the GOP when it became clear it would lose. Reilly will be under orders to be nice to the next President, or he and Ailes will be out of a job.

# posted by

James Wimberley : 10:19 AM

James W may well be right.

Murdoch likes to support the 'winning side' so that then he can later call in favours. He did precisely that in the UK directing his UK mass circulation papers to campaign against the Conservatives and for New Labour - over three successive elections. He may be up to the same game. Here are quotes from the Fox News Convention page:-

"The Obama campaign is doing its best to make George Bush the star of the Republican convention. They began airing an ad on national cable networks linking John McCain to the unpopular president, and have already issued a response to Mr. Bush’s yet-to-be-delivered speech tonight."

"Does John McCain Have a Tax Problem? Answer: Probably"

"Palin Gets Her Chance to Address Nation, Allegations"

Given Murdoch's house style - there seems to be movement - just like in the early days of Blair.

# posted by

Mourad : 11:26 AM

The following gives the background on the "terrorist fist bump." Suffice it to say, the story isn't as many on the left believe.

http://www.slate.com/id/2195347/

# posted by

Thomas : 11:31 AM

Re the "fist jab" -- Thomas, I don't know what you believe "the left" believe, but if you watch the actual clip from June 6, 2008, FOX host E. D. Hill opens her segment on Obama by asking, "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? . . . We'll show you some interesting body communication and find out what it really says." She really lingers over the phrase "terrorist fist jab."

Here's the video:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806060007

You can spin all you like, but you can't delete from the Internet the actual things FOX news anchors say. (Sure, she later said she was not endorsing, but was merely repeating, scurrilous right-wing accusations found on the Internet. What a great excuse!)

# posted by

Ben : 1:11 PM

What a cozy scene: Two chancers and a monster sitting round a table and not a principle among them.

Mitch Guthman

# posted by

Mitch Guthman : 1:43 PM

Hasn't the "Fox said it was a terrorist fist bump" story been completely debunked? Does Jack do anything but repeat Democrat lies?

E.D. Hill definitely asked rhetorically if the fist bump was a "terrorist fist jab". Now maybe she was just trying to be cute or jocular (I don't subscribe to the view that EVERY unfair comment that ever gets made in the media is a result of some sort of media bias), but there's no doubt that she said it and that she said it on the Fox News Channel.

# posted by

Dilan : 5:58 PM