Yesterday on Fox News, Gen. David Petraeus got irritated at anchor Harris Faulkner after the general repeatedly refused to be goaded into criticizing the Biden administration’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The exchange is something of a microcosm for Fox News’ coverage of Biden and echoes broader Republican strategies on a host of issues. And I’m not talking about the crypto-fascist pundits the network platforms every evening like Carlson and Hannity, but rather Fox’s version of ‘straight news’, which Chris Wallace stated recently that he became increasingly disillusioned by.
Faulkner repeatedly tried to emphasize that, despite Petraeus’ praise of the Biden administration’s military policy and supply infrastructure in aid of Ukraine, the American public does not believe Biden is doing a good job on the issue.
Keeping in mind the freudian slip — “A new poll does show that more than half of people disapprove of the way President Biden is handling Russia’s investigation” — it’s par for the course for Fox to bring on an esteemed military expert in hopes that they can get him to be critical of Biden.
When the general makes it clear he won’t act as a pundit, Faulkner reduces him to something of a cardboard cutout through her rhetoric, in which she poses questions she doesn’t appear to actually want his answers to. Take this bit of her monologuing, for instance:
‘Do you approve of how Joe Biden is handling the invasion of Ukraine?’ 53% say no. So getting your expertise and understanding what is really possible is important. Because there is a disconnect right now, and short of maybe a fireside chat from this president, I don’t know necessarily what changes it. But hearing from you, that’s important. So, let’s get to the nitty gritty of this. What can we give them to shoot down Russian planes? Because that’s what you’re talking about — artillery for an S-300 system. We must be able to give them something. Because what they’re about to do, according to the Russians, in the East, with this new general that they hired over the weekend to put him in charge — The Butcher is what they call him — what they’re about to do to the people of Ukraine, they’re gonna need more. And maybe these other countries are closer—
Worth noting, her emphasis and inclusion of “The Butcher” is classic Fox News fear-mongering at its finest.
But Petraeus cuts her off with a calm and repeated “So can I answer?” and goes on to explain the facts: that the US has worked with Slovakia to supply S-300 systems to Ukrainians (backfilling the Slovakians) and has also supplied substantial numbers of stinger missiles. He spells out how the US cannot provide all types of direct military assistance without first taking the time (and cost) to train Eastern European allies and Ukrainians on how to use US military systems (of which they are mostly unfamiliar), and so we have instead been helping supply weapons that can be more immediately effective while we man the backfilled military systems in our allies’ nations in the meantime.
In other words, the US is generally doing all they can to help Ukraine without direct military involvement that could lead to further unwanted escalation. Petraeus noted:
Look, it’s never going to be enough. I was never satisfied as a commander in the battlefield, again, under a Republican or a Democrat, that we had everything that we possibly needed. It’s about a relative question: are we doing what we can? And I think we are. I mean we’ve also committed over like 2-point-something billion dollars just in military assistance, and then much much more in terms of humanitarian and economic assistance and so forth. And of course, we’re also really putting the screws to the Russian economy, the financial system, Putin’s inner circle, and even the business community, which is leaving in droves, as have been some 250,000-300,000 Russians who are voting with their feet and leaving the country which they now see as an international pariah.
Keep in mind, Petraeus has stated he does not vote in elections in an attempt to remain apolitical. As he himself notes, his analysis couldn’t be more impartial.
Rather than acknowledge the positive examination that Petraeus lays out, however, Faulkner instead pivots the conversation to the British response to Russia’s invasion, unfavorably comparing the US’ sanctions against Russia to the UK Governments’. She then rebuffs Petraeus’ apoliticism by twisting the general’s words to suggest he said he was “supporting this current administration” despite there being, in her own words, “some problems right now” with their handling of Ukraine, despite all the evidence Petraeus just laid out to the contrary.
He interrupts: “I’m not supporting this current administration. I’m saying that what they are doing has been impressive.”
And while Gen. Petraeus concedes that the Biden administration should be communicating their successes (as he sees them) to the public better, he suggests Fox invite the NATO commander onto the program to speak to its viewers to better communicate the work being done. When Faulkner again tries to pivot her criticism to the administration’s supposed lackadaisical sanctions, he again suggests that Fox invite the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury onto the program to explain the administration’s policies.
“Appreciate the tip,” says Faulkner, and ends the interview.
Of course, Fox hasn’t taken his advice.
The whole exchange mimics the types of statements Republicans have been making throughout Biden’s tenure. When met with positive facts about Biden, Republicans resort to whataboutism and attempt to muddy the waters by appealing to how voters perceive the state of things, rather than what they actually are.
It’s the very same type of argument seen again and again regarding the 2020 election. On January 6, during the debate about whether Congress should accept Arizona's electoral votes, Sen. Ted Cruz argued for the prevention of Arizona’s vote certification on the basis that 39% of Americans believed the 2020 presidential election was rigged (the real number is closer to 28%, not that getting caught in a lie ever bothered Cruz). The focus of Cruz’s (and other Republicans’ mimicked) line of reasoning is not whether the election was actually rigged, but that since enough voters believed it was, then Congress should act based on their feelings, as opposed to facts.
And while right-wing pundit and dry-ass pussy advocate Ben Shapiro insists that “facts don’t care about your feelings”, the fact is that feelings seems to hold significant sway in contemporary politics — more so than facts themselves.
It’s thus no surprise that more than half of Americans disapprove of Biden’s handling of Ukraine when a considerable portion of the public watches shows like Fox that do not fairly assess the job he is doing. And when they bring on an expert who does, they shut him down, pivot to other critical talking points, and focus on how bad Biden is perceived, rather than on his record.
I’m not saying the Democrats don’t have serious policy issues to remedy ahead of the midterms. While not necessarily caused by Dems, it is nevertheless their responsibility to sort out serious issues, such as inflation, that are dragging their polling numbers down.
But maybe the reason Biden is so derided isn’t because he’s doing that bad of a job. Maybe it’s because, in a positive feedback loop of negative perceptions, he’s just being reported as such by half of the American media ecosystem.
John Dean said in 2018 that Nixon “might have survived if there’d been a Fox News”. Obama was able to survive two terms in part due to a sparkling record and in part because Fox and its competitors weren’t the far-right machine then that it is now.
With Biden, the opposite is true of Nixon — where he might have survived had there not been a Fox News then, he may be unable to now.
Once again, your analysis is spot on. My concern is what we can do about Fox News unfair coverage of world events when so many people watch it and buy into “alternative” facts rather then TRUTH!