Obama's decision to not appear on Fox News was the beneficial decision to his presidency.

Pro maintains that Obama's decision was the beneficial one for the following reasons: 1) Fox News would have misrepresented him and his plan anyway 2) The president has the right to exercise his free speech through selection 3) Obama has taken other, more legitimate attempts at bipartismanship 4) The act wasn't aimed to hurt Fox viewers, but the network itself 5) Obama's decision was meant to combat slander in the media Considering those are all good defenses of Obama's decision, you'll notice that not one of them touches upon the two specific results of his decision that I cited in the previous round: 1) Making himself look too scared to own up to Conservative newscasters 2) Not refuting false claims made about him and his policies, thus implying a verification of their legitimacy Let's examine Pro's claims. Is it true that Fox is a disgusting example of journalism? Yes. Do they frequently ignore the president or distort his claims? Absolutely. But considering this reality, wouldn't it have been beneficial for Obama to have had the opportunity to appear on Fox and at least be heard? If Pro's point was that Fox can't even be bothered to broadcast Obama's speech, then how are Fox viewers supposed to be exposed to it? If all they're hearing are misrepresentations of the plan, then the viewers are no better off not having heard Obama than they already are. That brings me to my next point: free speech. Sure, Obama has every right to decline appearing on Fox News. However, him doing this to punish the network who so often defames him is NOT hurting the network (like I said, it verifies their false ideals that liberals are a bunch of sissies, thereby increasing their credibility and their ratings). Instead, Obama is only only hurting himself. Like I said, right now Fox viewers are only getting a warped and negative idea about Obama's proposed plan. A good president would care more about conveying his plan to the people and gaining support for what he thinks would help them, instead of 'making a statement' to Fox News. Of course people have the right to exercise freedom of speech; however, it seems as if in this case, Obama pleaded the fifth... and you know what that means. Moving on, it's very true that Obama has made extraordinary efforts to be bipartisan thus far. I suspect that he'll keep it up for the next 4 years in an attempt to be re-elected; every president shows their true colors during their 2nd term. That said, while it's true that Obama may have sought a lot of exposure, let's face it: People (especially Conservatives) don't get their news from David Letterman. It's one thing to be able to talk and defend your politics to a liberal late night talk show host; it's another to be able to combat Bill O'Reilly. And like I said - despite the gross 'journalism' exhibited on Fox, it IS possible to make O'Reilly look like a huge turd. Richard Dawkins did it. Jeremy Glick did it (and he's not even a professional like Obama). My opponent asks, "Wasn't the attacking of Bush's greatest enemy, the media, one of the big reasons his presidency failed?" Absolutely not. Bush's ratings didn't go down because the media said so. Instead, the media said so because his ratings went down. No network refused to play Bush's speeches, especially on the biggest issue(s) of his presidency. He was an unpopular guy to begin with; he didn't win the popular vote in 2000 against Al Gore, and he was a dumb president who pissed off Democrats and Republicans alike (he was the most socially conservative president we've had in a long time; however, he was a big-time spender which annoyed the fiscal conservatives to no end). Okay, so moving on to Pro's fourth argument, again we reach the concensus that Obama was trying to take a stand against Fox and not punish the viewers. While I acknowledge that may have been Obama's intention, the reality again is that President Obama represents all Americans, including those who watch Fox News. Most Fox viewers are loyal to the network because they represent a more Conservative ideology than is usually found in the media, and as such, Obama has essentially only addressed those who are liberal or who support his leftist policies and networks, which is a minority of viewers as I have shown in the last round. I think Obama could have and should have been the bigger person in at least trying to PRESENT himself as bipartisan as much as possible. His politics have demonstrated that for sure, but the public is so deluded and obsessed with their arrogance and the media, Obama's choice in not appearing on Fox made just as big of a statement to his detriment that his politics have done to his benefit, if not more. Pro's final point was reiterating that President Obama's decision was meant to combat the great libel and slander he's endured on their behalf. However, I maintain that this decision only facilitated and perhaps even validated in some cases even more slander than usual or necessary. Because of this, and for all of my aforementioned reasoning, I stand in firm negation of the resolution.