Should Democrats Go On Fox?
The Politico tells us that some netroots types aren’t pleased with the fact that Howard Dean, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton are all appearing on Fox News.
Markos Moulitsas, founder of the leading liberal site Daily Kos, told Politico’s Michael Calderone: “Democrats are being idiotic by going on that network.”
Ari Melber, the Net movement correspondent for The Nation, told Politico by phone that progressive activists and the Netroots are “not happy about it.”
“I don’t think that it is tenable to completely neglect or ignore what your base wants,” Melber said.
I agree with Melber to an extent, but I suppose I’m not entirely sure why the base would be particularly concerned with keeping their candidates off of a well-watched news channel. Perhaps I’m not enough of a partisan, but I wouldn’t be bothered — in fact, I’d be rather thrilled — to see any conservative candidate, especially one I particularly liked, do an interview with Keith Olbermann, or even, say, a sit down with The Nation. There might be a case for conservatives to avoid talking with some of the net’s most notorious fire-breathers — those who’ve been not just critical, but vulgar and cruel. Even there, though, I think I’d be fine with it so long as the interview didn’t turn into an insult fest.
If anything, I think a good candidate — a strong personality who can forcefully defend his or her ideas — stands to gain from public face offs with oppositional parties. On one hand, it gives the candidate an opportunity to offer clear and direct responses to criticisms, potentially putting out a lot of fires, and thus convincing some of those who may be sitting on the fence. And a command performance in such an atmosphere ought to offer up a lot of stirring moments which the base will find appealing. Interviews with the other side provide candidates an opportunity to shine. And if not, well, why support a candidate who you think will wilt when pitched anything more than a softball?
The reason I don’t like it is that it allows a thinly-veiled propaganda vehicle to assert itself as some sort of legitimate news network. It also allows Hannity, O’Reilly, and company to continue to set the news agenda.
— Ian · May 2, 05:20 PM · #
Fox isn’t throwing fast balls, there thowing handgrenades. That’s the differance
— Rick · May 2, 05:21 PM · #
“…a good candidate — a strong personality who can forcefully defend his or her ideas — stands to gain from public face offs with oppositional parties.”
I agree with you—now. Two years ago, before Bush’s polls tanked and the Democrats recaptured Congress, when Hannity and the like were picking a new Democrat every day as Traitor of the Millenium, nobody in their right mind would have considered Fox to be a forum for the civil exchange of views. Now, Chris Wallace and Bill-O treat Obama and Clinton halfway decently and seem to want to know what they have to say, but memories of of the bad old days are still fresh. You can’t expect outraged partisans to just hit reset and pretend it never happened.
That said, as an Obama supporter, I believe in talking to our enemies. Since Fox finds it in their interest now to take Democrats seriously, it is good for Democrats to respond in kind.
— moose · May 2, 05:22 PM · #
For years now, Fox has been slanted in their coverage of… well, darn near everything. They have been consistent in supporting Republican candidates and issues and undermining democrats. There are two excellent reasons for Democratic players boycotting Fox.
First, it benefits Fox with credibility they don’t deserve, and viewers which pay the bills. Why help your enemy?
Second, there is no reason to expect anything resembling a level playing field. There is no shortage of media outlets which would be more fair to Democratic candidates.
The Dems don’t need Fox. Fox needs them. But Fox has been hostile to them. Let Fox suffer the consequences. If my neighbor is a jerk to me for years and then comes over and asks “Hey, could you help me put up a toolshed?”, I’m going to shut the door in his face.
— Baxter · May 2, 05:29 PM · #
Politicans and thinkers of all political stripes sit down for interiews by the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart, due to the fact that the host treats the guest with a basic level of respect.
This is the biggest difference between news networks like The Comedy Channel and Fox.
— Sloegin · May 2, 05:41 PM · #
Fox doesn’t ask tough questions, they ask SLANTED questions with FALSE PREMISES.
Hillary repeatedly let Bill O’Reilly get away with this during her interview, which signals his viewers that O’Reilly is on the right track in his questioning. She should have refused to answer virtually every question, but instead she agreed to virtually every one.
Either Hillary has lost her credibility, or she is selling it to FOX.
— DigitalDave · May 2, 05:48 PM · #
I think the bigger issue is that any democratic party member who does go on fox has to be prepared for the attacks, and has to maintain his/her dignity and STAND BY THE PARTY and ‘liberals’ in general. Don’t go on fox and pander to conservative ideas against your party and its principles. That’s the disgusting part. Some liberals aren’t prepared and some are only prepared to pander, both approaches are unacceptable on fox (or any media for that matter).
If you are a Democrat you need to be a principled liberal fighter, everything else is self damaging.
— Northern Observer · May 2, 06:10 PM · #
Now that they’ve both appeared-that should be the end of it. And the only
reason I approve of ONE appearance is that it takes away a couple of arrows in the Fox attack quiver. I’ve spent 30+ years in marketing for tv news, so, as a competitor, have seen research about the Fox business model.
Their platform as a news organization, though it appears to be, isn’t real—it just plays one on tv. It is rigged so that the hapless individual who offers a different view from the core beliefs of the Fox viewer/customer will always be attacked and bullied, live, with Fox controlling the agenda and length of “discussion.” Later, their comments will be edited without context, & aired continually as a damning soundbite, giving even greater opportunity for reinforcement of negative impressions. The Fox viewers are predominately authoritarian personalities, 50+, downscale, white with some college education. These people will NEVER vote for a democrat as their belief system won’t allow it. Fox has been very successful by giving their customers what they want—VALIDATION of their beliefs. They’re not seeking information and fresh perspective—they want to be right and feel that their side wins.Democrats,and any others not adhering to their right-wing agenda, who appear on Fox merely provide new opportunities for these viewers to see their surrogates, the Fox personalities, “win” against their enemies—they are entertained by the
spectacle of fresh Christians fed to the hungry lions. It’s just not smart
strategy to regularly provide new opportunities to do this. It’s better to
cut their supply lines.
— h m mathis · May 2, 06:15 PM · #
I agree w/ the above about validating a propaganda organization. Also, there’s the fact that in the 2004 election Fox viewers voted for Bush 88 to 7. More than self-described conservatives, gun-owners, evangelical Christians. This morning fox showed Obama doing the Letterman top 10. Then they read off the RNC’s top 10 reasons why Obama shouldn’t be president. Classy.
— Mr. Dave · May 2, 06:19 PM · #
Fox isn’t an honest news organization with a conservative slant, the way the Nation is an honest magazine with a liberal slant – it’s part of the Republican propaganda machine. They wouldn’t have invited Obama and Clinton on unless they thought it would help McCain get elected. If those candidates think they can turn a Fox interview to their advantage, that’s their call to make.
Now let’s see McCain do a sit down with Michael Moore.
— Peter · May 2, 06:31 PM · #
O’Reilly has more viewers than all the other cable channels at his hour combined. The top viewed cable news programs are all Fox one after the other. Mr. Suderman, your readers are elitist and bigoted (their comments are so off-base they obviously don’t watch the channel). Your blog today was very well written and well thought-out. You are part of the solution.
— dvcastle · May 2, 07:59 PM · #
Actually I watch Fox regularly. “Know thy enemy” and all that. The network gets the criticism that it all too richly deserves.
Recently Murdoch has begun to note that the culture is shifting and the growth audience is now on the left instead of the right. He has begun the shift in programming accordingly, so we see the spectacle of Chris Wallace upbraiding the airheads of “Fox & Friends” for not getting the memo. Wallace is likely to make whatever chameleon-like changes he has to make to keep working, but it may require a purge of several high-ranking Foxoids before the changeover is complete.
— Rex · May 2, 09:56 PM · #
Well, the Democrats do have Olbermann every night. He’s tne Michael Moore of network television.
— Keith Waters · May 3, 02:04 AM · #
I’m a conservative and rarely watch FNC, but if I watch news that’s the ONLY one. I was a lefty for 30 years so I have no interest in the others and know what they’re going to say (and I could write/speak it anyway). TV news in general is so passe and not worth my time.
That said, always face your enemies head-on. This is what makes conservatives in general tougher than liberals. Libs like to say conservatives live in an echo chamber but that is simply false. You cannot go to an airport without being bombarded unto death by CNN’s Hate America schtick. There are NO conservatives living in an echo chamber; we face our ideological enemies every day – at work, in our families and neighborhoods, online, on TV, in the media. Libs have it much easier and can actually go years if they want without having their ideas challenged, or at least used to be able to (the squealing we hear these days is libs having their dogma challenged by the New Media). I know; my ideas were not challenged (so that I could not ignore it) until 10 years ago.
Being challenged toughens you intellectually and we should all be challenged. Living in the liberal media cocoon leads to a false sense of security and entitlement and also leads to running empty suit candidates like…hmmm…oh yeah, Barack Obama. That was a real great idea. Not something that ever could have happened if liberals’ ideas were challenged by the media sufficiently.
— Peg C. · May 3, 08:32 PM · #