The Associated Press
Clearly, they're not afraid of CNN.
Featured
Topic |
Posted 28 weeks 6 days ago
Should Democrats debate on Fox News?
Hillary Clinton is ready to debate on Fox News. Barack Obama? We're not sure. But rank-and-file Democrats hate the idea: They think Fox is a bought-and-paid-for subsidiary of the Republican Party.
Fox New CEO Roger Ailes has a different take: "The candidates that can't face Fox," he says, "can't face Al Qaeda."
Thoughts
Not in the primary
Submitted on February 8th, 2008 by Josh"Thar be voters," quips my friend Joel.
True, but not registered Democrats. And there're still a lot of primaries to win. Democrats can start worrying about winning over the nutbar Fox-watchers after one or the other wins the fracking nomination. At this point, every dollar or minute spent reaching out to people who won't vote in Democratic primaries or caucuses is wasted.
Until then, Republicans who want to know what the candidates think can watch another channel.
Absolutely no way should
Submitted on February 8th, 2008 by mytwosenseAbsolutely no way should they debate on Faux News. Don't give this sham outfit even the appearance of credibility by doing so.
And don't succumb to the bullying tactics of being called a chicken, either. That would truly be cowardly.
Re: being right and wrong
Submitted on February 7th, 2008 by Jim LakelyHi Joel:
I'll resist the urge to take the argument further by noting that we agree more than we disagree (while whispering quietly to myself .... victory!). ...
Ok, I can't fully resist. I will not indulge the urge to offer a long, detailed dissertation on a subject I have a lot of personal knowledge of and passion about (I could type about this subject until the confirmation hearings for President Obama's Attorney General ...)
But, let's just say that Fox's success did not happen in a vacuum. Murdock/Ailes saw a huge segment of the market poorly served by an ideological monopoly in cable news, and moved to fill it. Big ratings and much advertising money followed. End story.
Cheers!
Jim
Yes and no
Submitted on February 7th, 2008 by JoelHi Jim:
You're right and you're wrong.
You're right: There are a number of reporters and commentators on other networks with Democratic or liberal backgrounds.
You're wrong: NBC or CNN, while they might employ individuals with left-leaning backgrounds or biases, don't have promotion of a left-leaning agenda or attracting a left-leaning audience as their core institutional mission. (NBC, need I remind you, is owned by a gigantic defense contractor.) That is the mission of Fox News, and you can't blame folks on the left for being leery of it. (They're not exactly enamored of Russert either, btw.)
That said: I don't think Dem candidates should necessarily boycot Fox News -- not because of Roger Ailes' silly Al Qaeda comment or anything like that. Simply put: Thar be voters. And this year, particularly, some Republican voters might be willing to give a Democratic candidate a chance. (If that Democrat is Obama.) It's two hours of free airtime, and if Hume et al decided to act the fool, independent and Democratic voters will surely see that for what it is.
Chickens scared of Fox
Submitted on February 7th, 2008 by Jim LakelyI'd buy those "Fox is biased" arguments a bit more if not for many commenters here ignoring the fact that NBC's Tim Russert is a former Democratic staffer, MSNBC's Chris Matthews is a former Democratic staffer, ABC's George Stephanopoulos is a former Clinton White House spokesman, and MSNBC's Olbermann is a hard leftist who is openly antagonistic toward anyone without a "D" next to their name.
To my knowledge, none of the Fox debate moderators -- Brit Hume, Chris Wallace or Wendell Goler -- has ever flacked or worked in the dungeon of a political office. The Fox debates, as I'm sure even Joel would acknowledge, were much more substantive and serious than what CNN and MSNBC provided. And the GOP hopefuls didn't boycott, for instance, MSNBC because Tip O'Neill's former aide was on the questioning panel.
As for Obama's refusual to go on Fox: That sure puts the lie to his campaign themes of "unity" and "coming together" and "reaching out," doesn't it? Turns out that he's like most liberals who mouth platitudes about unity and compromise: Such things are only possible when you agree 100 percent with all of my deeply held positions.
Besides, our next president will be president of the whole country -- which includes the right-leaning audience of Fox News Channel. Should he or she not reach out? And, in a pure electoral sense, either Hillary or Obama will need to attract the votes of more than just hard-core Democrats to win in November. You might start to cultivate that broad consensus by going on the No. 1 cable news channel. Brit Hume, I'm sure, will not be asking a snowman to handle one of his questions.
Forget Fox
Submitted on February 7th, 2008 by JoshIf it wants to be treated like a serious news outlet, and not a Republican snakepit, they should hire serious reporters and anchors, and fire the Republican snakes.
The general election may be different, but in the Democratic primary, there's no point having Republicans set the agenda for debates.
The image of a fattend hen
Submitted on February 7th, 2008 by kevinThe image of a fattend hen struting into a fox's den comes to mind. Good jugdement must be something people are born with or without in her case.
Fox news is garbage!
Submitted on February 7th, 2008 by AnonymousThe only reason that they are inviting Democrats on this year is because they know that the Republicans are going to lose in 2008 and all the shouting is getting old. Ratings are on a continued downward trend. While they tout how many viewers they have, they have less than 2-million daily viewers. That's not even 1% of the country. The whole network was created to serve an untapped market of conservatives who couldn't stand criticism. Other news networks use things like facts, which can be too much for the far right to take.