For two weeks, my favorite non-story, story has been the on-going feud between the White House and FOX News.  It's a favorite because it's the proverbial watercooler story that gets everybody talking.  Sadly, it also diverts our attention from the bigger, more pressing and serious stories (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, the joblessness problem, our lack of preparedness for a pandemic of any kind -- i.e., those long lines for the swine flu vaccine) that really need our attention.  Interestly, those stories always have a way of jarringly putting themselves back on the front page.  This weekend's suicide bombings in Baghdad and the deadly helicopter crashes in Afghanistan have, at least for the moment, knocked the White House - FOX News feud out of the news.

Usually, a White House only picks a media fight when it wants to remove the spotlight from something it has done that has gone terribly wrong or wants to turn attention away from something embarrassing.  The Obama White House doesn't have either of the situations in play, so it begs the question, "why fight with FOX"?  One reason may be that it's tired of the Glenn Beck tirades.  It's understandable that the White House might not want to deal with a network that actively promotes a host who accuses the President of having issues with white culture and of being a racist?  It's an absurd charge given that President Obama is half white and was raised by his white mother and grandparents.  In spite of Beck, this White House must deal with FOX, even if it views it with suspicion.  Why?  The U.S. is an example for the rest of the world.  It can't tell the despots of the world that they must tolerate dissent (even if it's biased, wrong, unfair, or made up), if it won't do so itself.  It's much more important to set that example than it is to try to freeze out or punish a network the administration thinks is out to get it. 

The Obama administration isn't the first to feud with the media.  There was no love lost between the Bush administration and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.  The Bush administration, toward the end, didn't send its people to appear on MSNBC's air.  Former spokesperson Dana Perino admitted as much during an appearance earlier this month on the FOX and Friends morning show.  It was wrong of the Bush administration to behave that way then, and it's wrong of the Obama administration to do so now.

There is an old saying in Washington, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer."  I don't know who said it, but in this town, it's always the right move.  President Obama should go right into the lions' den and directly confront FOX on the issues where he believes the network is either biased or wrong.  It's very easy for talk show hosts to say things when they're unchallenged by the people they're talking about, but it's a little more difficult to make nasty or hateful allegations directly to the person's face, especially when that person is the President.

As for FOX News and all the other cable networks, it's time for them to decide what they want to be.  Do they want to be news networks, or talk radio on TV?  Either is good.  Just make a choice.  It's difficult to straddle the line.  It's fine to have the kind of programs hosted by Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Joy Behar, Jane Velez-Mitchell, and all the rest, but let's all stop pretending these folks are journalists doing news-type programs because they're part of a "news network on cable".  And, let's realize that when these shows run alongside other "real" news programming, even if they're contained to different parts of the day, people of all stripes will question the ENTIRE network's perspective.  It won't matter that  the news shows are perfectly fair, balanced, and objective.  If cable networks want to be talk radio on TV, go all in and do it.  But, don't throw in some "news shows", blur the line and still expect to be treated like a news network.