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

My opponent says: "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." The thing is, when you are battling a news organization that is BLATANTLY lying to its viewers, twisting around the words of the people who appear on the show, and also, blatantly again, not showing not just one, but a multiple number of the president's speeches - you must make a real stand. Obama has had a strained relationship with Fox even prior to his election as president. He tried to bury the hatchet with Fox a couple of times, and yes, even appearing on Bill O'Reilly prime time (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com...) So, it is not like Obama has not tried to refute claims against him or not gone head to head with Mr. O'Reilly, it's just that this happens to be the last straw for our president, and the corruption of a Network can only be battled so far. It doesn't matter who appears on Fox, what they say (like Richard Dawkins - people still watch O'Reilly, and Fox viewers, on vast majority, still dislike Dawkins). My opponent continues to say, "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." Quite frankly, Obama did not plead the fifth. Obama visited everyone else, gave extensive background on his plan, covered MORE bases than any other president in a single solitary morning, and also publicly told the press why he would not appear on Fox News. This doesn't hurt the actual heart of his presidency. This makes him look like a force against corruption, a corruption that wouldn't even address what his plan is let alone have a civil conversation with him. My opponent doesn't seem to notice that it would actually appear WORSE for Obama if he appeared on Fox. Not only will people not get the true idea of his plan, but it will appear warped straight from the horse's mouth. Instead of looking to other sources to see what the inevitable health plan will consist of (and seeing this health plan in the light it is suppose to be seen in) - the viewers will get Fox's take on it, and think that Obama actually said the warped things they portrayed him to say (and they wont need to look to another network or to a newspaper - because "Obama" would have said it himself - thus helping Fox's claims DRAMATICALLY). Obama did care about conveying his plan to the people. That is why he appeared on just about every network under the sun. His statement that Fox News is a corrupt organization helps his people just as much. He is showing them he cares enough to not to feed into the "News Network" that is brainwashing the United States masses into blind stupidity. My opponent continues.... "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." Readers, this is irrelevant information inserted by my opponent in order to shed irrelevant bad light on Obama - BEFORE it even happens. How does my opponent know for sure that Obama will not continue contributing to the GOP? He has done more, as I noted in my former argument, than most other presidents ever have at being bipartisan. It doesn't matter what he will do in the future for his current term as presidency and the view that the conservatives should have on him NOW which is the important thing, and what we are talking about in this debate. "Absolutely not. Bush's ratings didn't go down because the media said so. Instead, the media said so because his ratings went down." My opponent must be delusional if she thinks that the media didn't contribute an inch to Bush's popularity decline. The media controls the majority of the President's image. Con continues to say that Obama is punishing conservative America by not appearing on Fox News. Again, he has appeared on Fox before, and he is not punishing Fox. If conservative America can not watch any other news organization (any of the plethora of others, or even News Papers that covered what he said on television), that's their problem. His stand against Fox News does more for them than he appearing on it and getting warped for them. Fox News is so much of an entertainment/brain washing machine that the viewers will always be on Fox's side, no matter what anyone says. As my opponent mentioned earlier that Glick and Dawkins made O'Reilly look bad - the Fox Viewers did not consider this at all. They just thought of these people as "ignorant idiots" who attacked O'Reilly because he was asking hard questions. You can't win with an audience that is conditioned to be sheep. A stand against Fox News might snap them out of this more than a warped appearance on Fox that may carry vastly harder implications. My opponent concludes with, "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." No, Obama shows himself as a bigger person by combating corruption - by being the moral figurehead of a fight against slander in the media. The media; the one thing that informs out populace. Obama has tried, again as I've noted, more than most presidents to present himself as bipartisan - more in the beginning of his term than even (as my opponent noted) the most conservative of our presidents; George W. Bush. If the intelligent conservatives can not grasp their minds around this, and remain sticking to Fox News' garbage, then they are far more lost than I could have even imagined. "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" I have constantly given insight on number 2 - saying that verification of policies will be shown on other stations - and that his stand was making a more important point - and also that his claims would just be twisted, once again. As for number 1 - I have also addressed this - showing that his high moral ground will make him look like a stronger president in the future - we just need to look past the current squabble we see around us. He doesn't look weak, as he is attacking the Network head on and has appeared on it in the past. I affirm that Obama's decision to not appear on Fox News was the most moral of decisions, leading a fight against media slander poised to misinform the American public. His actions will be views as positive in the future, and his actions will also help weed out the corruption that has stupefied our American public. Obama's decision to not appear on Fox News was a beneficial decision to his presidency. I have proved this statement as Pro. He will be viewed as moral and a man against slander. Just as President Lincoln wasn't at first viewed in a favorable light for his actions... Obama might not be in the beginning, but just like Lincoln, his stand will be noticed - and the view of his presidency will be benefited. His presidency is being put to use in favor of justice for the American people. There can be no more favorable of a stance than to bring justice and truth to the people.