So much for a boring Saturday night. I had the honor of conversing with Fox New Watch's Jim Pinkerton.
BOB: A behind the scenes question. Ellis Henican has a very annoying on-air persona, yet I met him last summer in Manhattan and he's someone I could have a beer with. How was Neal Gabler off air?
JIM PINKERTON: Neal was/is extremely smart. His book "Life the Movie" is one of the most profound books on the changed reality of our "media-ted" world. I count him as a friend, and I was sorry to see him off the show.
But yes, he did have strong opinions, both on air and off set.
BP: Cool. He was quite annoying on FNW, but I guess that was his shtick.
Let me ask you this: the Barack Obama birth certificate drama had almost no traction in the media. Any idea as to why, seeing how it's a very valid issue?
JP: I am no scholar, and I am in no position to argue the merits of that issue, so I will just say this: The overwhelming consensus–not to mention the law, as interpreted by top lawyers–is that Obama was born here and is legal.
Having said that, there's plenty we don't know about him. For my own part, I was puzzled that the story about his lawyer, William Miceli, owning his house–reported on WorldNetDaily on Christmas Day–didn't get any traction. Again, I am no lawyer, and no expert on Obama's legal career and financial history, but assuming that this deed on his house issue is not a total forgery, it is certainly curious, considering that Miceli was/is the lawyer for Tony Rezko.
I imagine that the McCain campaigners had wished that they had found out that particular piece of info before the election.
BP: See, this is what I don't understand and sometimes I wish I could do a FNW just to ask, why the passes on Obama? If Hillary spent a million on lawyers instead of provide a $12 birth certificate, she'd be undergoing yet another colonoscopy. For some reason, the media seems reluctant to dig on Obama. Could it be they may be afraid of the R-word?
JP: Could be. Again, I am no enemy of a thorough-going analysis of Obama's life. If it had happened before the election, he probably wouldn't be about to be sworn in. And now, of course, it will happen, even with a mostly fanboy press, just because he is President, and the whole world is intensely curious.
Although whatever revelations come now, I think that they will have dramatically less impact, because Obama is now putting points on the board–positive or negative points, depending on one's point of view–as President.
BP: Okay. I'm sick of talking about Barack Obama, especially with the wall-to-wall that's already started.
As a monitor of the media, I remember the Jack Abramoff scandal being labeled a "Republican scandal." Bernard Madoff has given thousands of dollars to primarily Democrats, yet this scandal hasn't been given a partisan label. Am I stating the obvious that the media is veering clear of this angle?
JP: Yes, you are certainly correct about Abramoff. I seem to recall that he gave money to Democrats, who have slipped into the memory hole. As for Madoff, he gave plenty of money to Dems, didn't he? And I wonder if any of those Dem recipients have been asked to give it back. Maybe you know the answer, and if the answer is "no, they haven't given it back," then that's definitely worth raising hell about.
BP: The problem is the media is supposed to be the Fourth Column or branch, I believe. If they get chills running up their legs, how are they going to be trusted, especially now that they've got the government they prefer?
JP: Hey, I work at Fox! How can I anything but agree?
BP: The left considers FNC a wing of the Republican Party and that hated corporate media.
JP: I didn't vote for Obama, but even I feel the weight of something big happening here in DC, and in the country.
BP: Okay, that was kind of ominous. Would you care to elaborate?
JP: No, not per se ominous, at least in my mind. To me, the big thing, at least on domestic policy, is the bailout(s).
I wrote a piece for, of all places, The Huffington Post, in which I "interviewed" Karl Marx on "Das Bailout". I was kinda proud of the piece, and it puts forth my real fears about the direction of economic policy.
And as for national security policy, with an economic edge to it, you might take a look a piece I wrote for the Fox Forum, on fnc.com, in which I urged President Obama to revive JFK's space program. I am told that Obama is actually a sci-fi fan, in which case, I will revise (upward) my opinion of him.
Yet at the same time, I feel strongly that the media should not be giving 44 a free pass–and that they are. And even more so, the Democrats. Just in the past few months, I've seen several Democratic mayors get themselves indicted–in Birmingham AL, Baltimore, and Racine WI.
Take a look.
BP: As much as there's "hope and change", there is always resistance. A few years ago here in Massachusetts, David Axelrod took his warm-up lap with Deval "Together We Can" Patrick, thus helping elect the Commonwealth's first black governor. Later, we get Barack Obama with more of the vague. In Massachusetts, the super-majority Democrats have not allowed Patrick to do much (which is also a good thing), but so far his term is a disaster.
There are reports out today that Nancy Pelosi is writing bills out of her office instead of in committees. Dems are pissed, Republicans are shut out and it's being considered a power grab. Do you think she may not want to give up her top-dog status?
JP: Yeah, it's always a struggle in this world, between centralization and decentralization, or, if you prefer, between authority and liberty.
The Dems are under pressure to get something done, and it's not so clear that Congress in all its decentralized glory, can get anything done. So maybe Pelosi has the right idea, although it won't sit well with the barons of the House.
The question is how the rank and file of the Dem caucus feels.
BP: Lastly, do you see the media bias that was so over-the-top during the campaign getting worse, of will the media turn on Barack Obama and (in their fine tradition) tear down that which they propped up?
JP: The only rule of history: Nothing lasts forever. I think that Obama has a LOT of momentum and a lot of public desire for him to succeed–and that he has even more support, relatively, in the media. What conservatives have to do is work hard. They have to really get into the nitty gritty of bailouts and the like, to discover, and then to show, how the money is being spent and misspent.
BP: That won't be hard.
JP: If they can do that sort of solid loyal opposition spadework–which, we agree, was not done during the campaign–then conservatives and GOPers and likeminded libertarians will do fine in the long run.
I just saw your stuff on Deval Patrick. As a son of the Bay State myself, I care about what happens up there, and I realize that Patrick has not done well, so we'll just see if Obama has learned from DP's mistakes.
BP: Thanks, Jim.
JP: You bet! 'Twas fun.
Jim Pinkerton joined FOX News Channel in 1996 as a Washington DC-based political analyst; he is also a regular on FOX News Watch.
Pinkerton worked in the White House under presidents Reagan and Bush, and also in the 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992 Republican presidential campaigns. He is currently a columnist for Newsday in New York, a columnist for TechCentralStation.com, and a fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington DC.
Pinkerton is the author of
What Comes Next: The End of Big Government and the New Paradigm Ahead.
Pinkerton's work has also appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The New Republic, National Review, Foreign Affairs, Slate.com, Space.com, and many other publications.
He is a graduate of Stanford University.
