The CBC should just say no to Fox

The problem is that this sort of thing can lead to eventual complete segregation of the media along partisan lines. If Democrats no longer want to debate on Fox News, then Republicans soon will not want to debate on CNN. Then not on PBS. The rest of the media will get divided up the same way.

Is this good for the country? It seems to me that we have entirely too much of a partisan slant in our news coverage as it is, without encouraging either party to boycott this network or that network. In terms of debates, what is important is not the editorial slant of the reporting, it is the viewership the network has. Fox News Channel, biased as it is, reaches many many millions of viewers. Including a hell of a lot of viewers in red states and swing states that democrats badly need to reach. If the CBC sponsored debate were on it, for an hour or ninety minutes, all those viewers would be getting uncensored liberal progressive democratic dialogue. Yes, the Fox people can editorialize in their biased way before and after the debate, but they would do that anyway.

When CBC or another liberal progressive group sponsoring a democratic debate boycotts Fox, they are more boycotting Fox's viewers than Fox's reporters. A boycott isn't going to drive Fox out of business or make them more progressive. It is just going to say, "we don't want to make our case to their viewers" This is not the right message to send. FNC gets huge viewership, much more now than CNN, so if a democrat debate can be put on there, fine and good. Better that than perpetuate media segregation on partisan lines, where those in red states watch some channels and blue states other channels, and neither side appears on the others' channels. That is not a world we should want.

If you're now at the point where you're seriously comparing CNN or PBS to Faux, Wallner, then I can only suggest that you stop overdosing on stupid pills.

The problem with Faux is, simply put, that experience suggests they will do everything they can to put all of our candidates in an unfavorable light. After all, this is what Faux does every other day, and there's no reason to suspect that they'd behave any differently during a televised debate. I can easily imagine them asking Obama whether his middle name indicates support for terrorism, asking PanderBot about her husband's affairs, asking Edwards about his record as an ambulance-chaser (which is what they called him in 2004), asking Richardson about rumors regarding his affairs, and so on. That would be in line with the steady diet of anti-Progressive talking points that this channels viewers are fed every day, and anyone, such as you, who thinks that one debate controlled by the propaganda-feeders at Faux will suddenly convince their viewers to vote for our guys in a primary is just mind-numbingly stupid.

This is a no-brainer. Faux is a conservative, pro-R outlet dedicated to electing Rs. We do not need to assist their campaign to be seen as 'fair and balanced' by providing them with access to our candidates. Faux needs to be marginalized as the partisan propaganda outlet it is, and this is just one part of that.

is the equivalent of those rags at the supermarket checkout. Why the Dems even considered legitimizing Fox by debating there is beyond me. Some notion that they needed to pander to some imagined Fox audience that could be swayed to the Dem side. As if.

Nance

the CBC has now dumped Fox in favor of CNN. Or maybe not -- http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/14/breaking-cbc-chooses-cnn-over-fox/

Nance

mole said:

"Fox is a network where terrorism against American targets (NY Times Building, Coit Tower, etc.) is advocated. That warrents a boycott. It is a network that tells Jews to move to Israel if they don't think America is a Christian Country (displaying both ignorance of the Constitution AND anti-Semitism). "

Are you not taking the words of the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, who are hired to have opinions like other op-ed people, and making the assumption that their words are somehow also automatically the beliefs of the Fox Network execs? That seems like faulty logic to me. CNN had Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak on ranting and raving for years, and if you took their words out of context, you could have quoted them in a piece like this and made the claim that *CNN*'s execs were right wing right?

FNC has an editorial bias but lets not specify that bias by assuming that all their execs are sean hannity bots and bill o'reilly bots

CNN paid Pat Buchanan, who is a hard core racist, for years to co-host Crossfire and be a talking head on their news shows. Was CNN encouraging Buchanan's ideas or Robert Novak's ideas, or Tucker Carlson's? Or were they just giving them a place to air them? If you did not call on a boycott of CNN when they employed and were paying Buchanan, Novak, Carlson et al, then it is not logical for you to call a boycott of Fox because they employ O'Reilly and Hannity. Those guys are not worse than the CNN right wing pundits, they are the same.

The one thing worse than a bad idea is forced suppression of those ideas. You are saying you want censorship. I'd rather Bill O'Reilly be where he is so millions of people can see what an idiot he is. I'd rather an anti-semite be on the air and exposed as a racist then be off the air in a closet somewhere. You can't make freedom of speech a partisan thing, a selective thing. I suppose by your logic you'd want the New York Times to fire David Brooks too, along with any other conservative columnists who might sometimes be or sound anti-semitic. You are taking too hard a line.

FYI folks, just because the CBCI partnered with CNN for debates doesn't mean they're not still considering Fox. In fact, the word is that a debate with Fox is still in the works, it just hasn't been announced. Before that announcement is made is the key time to make them change their minds. Gotta keep the pressure on.

Thanks for this post.

--Gabriel from ColorOfChange.org

[check this update at huffpo]

UPDATE: Several blogs have reported this afternoon that the Congressional Black Caucus Institute's partnering with CNN means that the fight to prevent the CBC Institute from doing a deal with Fox is off the table. This is not true.

We've known since the beginning the Institute has been considering deals with both Fox and CNN, so the announcement that CNN will host a CBC debate means nothing in terms of the fight around the CBC Institute and Fox. A few hours ago I spoke with a reporter who talked with Rep. Kilpatrick herself--a CBC member who is on the CBC Institute board. According to him, she said that a debate is still in the works with Fox; it just hasn't been announced.

This is not a time to slow down or to think that the CBC Institute has been moved an inch. If anything, the announcement of the CNN deal serves to distract folks from the issue that a Fox deal is still on the table.

here's a great article in politico that documents only a few of the actual partisan, non-journalistic stunts fox has engaged in, too numerous to list here.

granted, every outlet lets some bias slip thru; but fox has been documented in not only using a revolving door between the upper gop party elites and the fox executives, but memo=induced partisan slant for the day's news reporting.

"Mole said: I am assuming that because these people are paid by Fox to say these things Fox is encouraging these ideas."

Is that a fair assumption to make? Do you assume that because Barnes and Noble sells Bill O'Reilly's books and copies of Mein Kampf that they are *encouraging* these ideas? What in your mind defines "encouraging an idea"? My concern is that one day's boycott is the next day's suppression. One day you boycott bookstores selling Mein Kampf, the next you become like Germany and Israel where it is I believe illegal to even sell it. I think the objective is to fight the idea, not the distribution of the idea. Our objection with Fox News should not be that they present right wing ideas, it should be that they do not present left wing ideas enough to balance their coverage. Withholding our candidates and boycotting them will only make their network MORE right wing, not less. It will defeat our goals.

Faux is a propaganda, not a news outlet.

Mole said: "Barnes and Noble did not hire Hitler to write Mein Kampf. Fox DID hire their hosts to say exactly the kind of crap they do"

But your logic is faulty because Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity were not created by Fox, they were succesful radio hosts who got hired to do on tv what they did on radio. Fox didn't create their message anymore than B&N created Hitler's book. Barnes and Noble sells Mein Kampf because of what the book is and because people will buy it. Fox hired O'Reilly and Hannity because of who they are and because of their audience. These media outlets are businesses, and first and foremost their objective is to make money.

So what would happen if FNC carried this democratic debate and it got huge ratings? They would see that there is ratings potential in such coverage and perhaps get more balanced in the future. As long as the most money is in fully catering to the right they will continue to do so. Which is what you and other democrats calling for a boycott would accomplish, it just further enamors the right to Fox. It defeats our cause. We need to fight media segregation by demanding more balanced coverage and showing these networks that there is money in more balanced coverage.

We cannot do that by a boycott. I remember when Fox News Channel first started, as a Time Warner cable customer I petitioned them not to carry it. They didn't want to carry it, they own CNN after all. But deals were made. FNC got on the cable systems and now its huge. FNC isn't going to go away, so the only way to fight them now is from within, to get them to fire Ailes and change their ways. Rupert Murdoch's #2 in command of parent News Corp. is a democrat from what I've read. All things are possible.

Mole, you do the same thing you get sick of. You cannot admit that your logic is in any way imperfect.

Barnes and Noble sells tons of copies of Bill O'Reilly's books. Fox sells tons of ads on Bill O'Reilly's tv show, his radio network the same thing. So why does Fox have a specific message and Barnes & Noble does not? You are talking about media outlets that are in business and are trying to make money. Yet when B&N makes money off of Bill O'Reilly's right wing propoganda, its okay but when FNC does the very same thing, they are evil hate-mongers?

The guys who run Fox News are not latter day nazis, they are mostly politically apathetic or ignorant businessmen who see something that sells and they SELL it. Hell, Fox distributed Star Wars, should we now boycott all those movies and any Fox tv or movie product because the parent company owns FNC? I am saying that we get nowhere by painting Fox News Channel, or anyone on the right, as the evil right wing nazis when they are mostly just businessmen. We have decried the right for years for their "liberal media bias" crusade, where they screamed for years that the media was pushing a liberal message. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot, we do the very same thing. Proving we are no better than they are in some ways.

The left is not going to win the political war in this country by fearmongering and painting all right wingers and all media that don't filter out the most objectional content in their message as evil. We aren't going to get anything accomplished in this country if one side continues to portray their side as holy and righteous and the other side as racist and evil.

The left cannot win by being nastier than the right. This is what Barack Obama has been saying, that neither side shows enough compassion, neither side sees the worth in the other.

You state "there never was a liberal media bias" as if it was a fact. It isn't a fact, bias is a matter of opinion. Most of the old school news anchors WERE liberals. I knew Ted Koppel's daughters, they both worked on the Dukakis campaign. I knew Jim Lehrer's daughter when she worked for the DNC. In both cases, they said their dads were strong liberals. Does that mean there was liberal bias in their coverage? I didn't really think so but I couldn't have blamed right wingers if they thought otherwise. Its a matter of opinion. Yes I reiterated my points, which I do if I don't think I made them clear enough before. Big deal. I am not arguing that too many right wingers work at Fox and that their news coverage isn't biased. What I'm saying is that right wingers who show bias are all over the place, not just at Fox, and we accomplish nothing with boycotts. The netroots does not realize that the left's cause is hurt by excessive meanspiritedness and fearmongering.

You are making it sound like Fox News Channel is going to be the precipitators of a new holocuast! Please, for crying out loud, all of those people are not anti semitic and they do not threaten you. You can disagree with their politics, I do strongly, and still accept that they are not evil people.

Mole, one day you and a lot of others are going to get to the point where you are too afraid to step out of your home each day for all the biases you perceive are threatening you out there. We can't have solid political discourse in this country when we develop pure hatred and phobia for anyone who doesn't follow the same message.

Mole, I did not accuse a mixed race couple of not understanding racism, I claimed that racism is one problem that is part of the larger overrall problem which includes sexism, poverty, homophobia, war .etc I said that if we claim one problem is greater than the other problems, it obscures the bigger picture. Martin Luther King said the same thing, towards the end of his life he shifted the SCLC towards an an anti-poverty drive and anti-war drive, issues which weren't exclusively giving the spotlight to the race issue. He got criticized for it. He kept trying to tell people that war, poverty and racism were not three different problems, they were part of the SAME problem. Which boils down to the human race and how we relate to each other. Thats all I was saying, this woman you refer to completely misunderstood and flipped out for no good reason.

I call for compassion and understanding and what I get here is mean spiritedness and vindictiveness. I try to say that my personal view is that both sides of the political spectrum get carried away with the rhetoric, and seeing the other side as evil, and many times little ends up getting done. It is a valid opinion, and what do I get for saying that here? Not respect for a considered but conflicting opinion from the majority, but personal attacks and bringing up of old posts. This does not speak well of the environment you are trying to foster here on this board. Mole, your attitude seems to be that the consensus is always right, and if you don't come here to applaud the consensus and be in the chorus, you aren't welcome here. Look at the way Francis has been villified and torn apart. I wish you'd think about how arrogant and mean you and bouldin in particular often come across when you don't like other peoples' opinions.

After all I'm not the one calling you names and bringing up past posts and making personal attacks just I don't agree with you. I'm argumenative, I like a good debate. Why even bother making personal attacks? Why not simply address the substance of what was being typed. Do you think most posters here even care what you or Bouldin think of me? Just let it go. You cannot ask for respect as a moderator/editor when you will not give it.

As for FNC, I like Mark Green's approach, as mentioned in the Village Voice article this week. Green, now running Air America, wrote FNC and said they might get less hostility hosting this debate if they allowed AA, or others similar, to have half of the panelist slots. He also offered to let the op/ed editor of the Post come on Air America once a month in exchange for once a month getting a guest column in the Post's Op/Ed page. They were not receptive to Green's suggestions, but he has the right idea. We can't obliterate FNC, we need to infiltrate them and write them and demand more balanced coverage. It is reasonable.

Seriously.

HillaryBot Holland is being vilified? Yeah, well sure; he starts every discussion with the assumption that if you don't support Hillary, you must be a white supremacist. He called me out personally and by name as such on his blog. Can't imagine why anyone would find that an unacceptable way to make a point, but hey, that's just me.

You, meanwhile, are really not conversing with anyone in this thread, but basically babbling at yourself. The argument being made here, and I am completely mystified why this isn't getting through, is that Faux is a hostile network that we shouldn't legitimize by our presence, because that in turn validates their 'fair and balanced' positioning and thus, the rest of their propaganda. You're snarfing on about completely unrelated topics like censorship, the tone of discourse in general, Hitler at Barnes and Noble and what not. None of that has anything whatsoever to do with what this post is about.

Nothing.

Whatsoever.

Which is par for the course for you, witness the examples Mole made. Like that other HillaryBot, you just rant and rave and then wonder why you piss people off. Get a fucking clue already, Wallner. You're interacting with people here, and your words do have consequences, you ignorant douchebag. Bitching about how you're just misunderstood by the stoopeeds ignores the central fact of your own agency in pissing people off, you dumb fuck.

Ah, I feel better already.