During last year's election, every American I knew who was a total news junkie and a Barack Obama supporter would have the television tuned to cable news throughout the day. Every so often, some "massive" story broke that seemed like it could be bad for Obama. John McCain suspended his campaign. Sarah Palin said Obama "pals around" with terrorists. Joe the Plumber said something that appeared to represent old-fashioned common sense. Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright said something that emphatically did not. Rasmussen had McCain gaining ground.

Each time one of these eruptions occurred, the reaction started: OMG! This is a disaster. This could mean three, four points in the polls. There goes Virginia (the state, not a person). Goodbye, white vote. And so on. Of course, none of these catastrophes ever came to pass. McCain's stunt backfired, Palin persuaded no one who wasn't already persuaded, Brother Werzelbacher did not have talismanic powers over voters, Ayers and Wright never counted for much and daily polls did not in fact drive the election. The large mass of voters stayed more or less focused on more or less important things. Obama won a substantial victory. If you'd relied solely on cable television before the voting, you would have been surprised by the result. It's not that the cable nets were pro Obama or anti, uniformly. It's simply that cable lives off of daily, tempest-in-teapot pseudo-scandals, whomever they effect. And since the right was coming at Obama pretty hard last October, and since no one could quite be sure that America really would elect a black man as its president, all the little cable pseudo-scandals seemed like possible death blows. So why weren't they? Repeat after me, folks: Cable. Doesn't. Matter. Which brings us to the current "war" between the Obama administration and Fox News, well described by the Guardian's Chris McGreal. The conventional wisdom is that a politician shouldn't pick a fight with the media. Especially with mighty Rupert's media. Can't win that one.

But why not? Herewith, three reasons why the conventional wisdom is probably wrong here. First, what Obama spokeswoman Anita Dunn said – "Fox News often operates either as the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican party" – is clearly true. Even Republicans wouldn't deny this. After all, there's a reason conservatives watch Fox, just as there's a reason liberals watch MSNBC and those in between watch CNN. So she wasn't really saying anything that any informed person living in the real world would argue with.

Second, it is worth pointing out, because outside the realm of news junkies, lots of people may not know that Fox is a Republican network. I know this seems hard to believe to you and me. But never underestimate the lack of knowledge on the part of the larger public – not because people are dumb, but because they're preoccupied with other things. I once saw a poll a couple of years ago showing that a shockingly large percentage of Americans, maybe even upwards of 40%, couldn't keep straight in their heads which US political party supported abortion rights and which one opposed them. Given that, it's perfectly fine for the White House to tell the broader public that Fox is a Republican network. This actually may be news to some people, and is therefore a useful thing to say. Third, saying it openly, and denying Fox interviews as Obama did last month, makes the base happy. What's wrong with making the base happy?

Fox will make a crusade out of this, in the way that McGreal describes Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly as doing. But who cares what Beck and O'Reilly say, beyond the universe of people who are already proven to care what they say? Nobody. They have their 2 or 3 million viewers. Fine. Bully for them. The other 307 million Americans are busy doing other things.

Could Fox find a way to destroy Obama somehow? Sure, I guess. If their "news" operation breaks some legitimate corruption scandal. But aren't they probably looking for that anyway, whatever Anita Dunn does or does not say about them? Of course they are. And if it's a legitimate story and not some ginned-up ideological jihad of the usual sort, then other news outfits will follow it, whether it was broken by Fox or some distant blogger. News junkies constantly overestimate cable television's reach and influence. Always remember: If Fox were that powerful, we'd be watching President McCain calling the shots.