Democrats Dismiss Fox News Debate

(Getty Images/Stan Honda)

What is the sound of one voice debating? We may find out this fall.

Yesterday, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson became the latest Democratic presidential candidates to decide that they will not participate in this fall's Fox News Channel debate, which is co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus.

According to the AP article:

The debate exodus began two months ago when John Edwards became the first candidate to announce that he would not attend the Sept. 23 debate in Detroit. A week later, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama announced they also would not participate.

This leaves only Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel as the candidates who haven't yet backed out of the event, making America rethink whether good things come in threes. Why are the candidates voluntarily withdrawing from a chance to get their message across to the largest prime-time audience in cable news? Pressure from two online organizations – ColorForChange and MoveOn – who accuse the "Fair and Balanced" news network of being "hostile to the interests of Black America."

While this reporter has been critical more than once of Fox News Channel's approach to broadcast journalism, this boycott effort seems counterproductive to the groups' goals. If they believe Fox News Channel treats them unfairly, why not take the opportunity to have their party's candidates appear on the network and say so, rather than allowing the purported campaign to continue unabated? When Bill Clinton went on Fox News Channel in 2006, his interview with Chris Wallace became a debate that ignited a public discussion of his administration's efforts to fight terrorism – and rallied the left. Why not use the same page from the playbook?

America's media landscape is already polarized enough. Partisans listen to their own radio shows, watch their own media outlets and generally seek out information that reinforces their political leanings. The Democratic presidential candidates are missing out on an opportunity to get their message out, confront the channel they view as a foe, and define themselves in their own words, rather than letting themselves be defined by what they see as Fox's mischaracterizations.

And besides, Fox News recently called Michael Moore's new movie "brilliant and uplifting." So you never know.

[jburdman7]

All the (R) candidates showed up for MSNBC's grilling. MSNBC took the opportunity to air all of the top negatives for each candidate, in an attempt to get as many (R's) against all of the candidates as possible, and they did a fine job of it.

Who would want to defend the following positions? Most (D) positions do not last past a sound bite's worth of analysis.

Social Security - It is not broke. And when it is broke, we will tax 'the rich.' The REAL solutions didnt sell well in the polls. So they take the stand that takes real GUTS and BACKBONE... UTTER DENIAL!

Iraq - Do not worry. When we leave, it will cease to exist.

Energy - 1) Conserve! 2) But since that means tough decisions and sacrifice, switch to making it an engineering problem like car design. 3) Hand auto manufacturing to the Japanese by increasing CAFE. 4) But that would anger the auto unions and they donate to the left. 5) Blame oil companies (without whom we would have even less oil.) 6) Pipe dreams like Hydrogen. Do NOT ask where you get the hydrogen from (Natural gas!) 7) Keep rotating the useless solutions until you hit one the listener does not realize is a hoax and claim that as your answer.

Eliz Dole said The dams seem content to lose in Iraq. The Dems were offended. The day after the election the dems claimed 'we already lost'.

The dems are a sad joke. But so is their opposition. We are governed by morons.

[brianbwb-2009]

The Congressional Black Caucus, while absolutely necessary, has been rather ineffective of late representing interests of the constituents their members are supposed to serve. They, along with all the other congresspeople, are so entangled in corruption that they only make occasional gestures toward the purpose for which they were elected. Working with the obviously pro right Fox news is, IMHO not reaching out, as they should know that Fox's audience is not likely to abandon racist tendencies. It is more likely that CBC is still, as sadly usual, ignored by the other networks.
At any rate, debates are useless, as there is never any positive outcome as far as reaching consensus to resolve problems. Its just a beauty contest for gorillas.

[one_american]

Democrats are afraid they will be exposed for the frauds that they are, so they avoid any situation (especially a debate on a network that doesn't actively promote their agenda like CBS) where they might be put in an uncomfortable situation.


That's all there is to that.

[memekiller]

If this were ABC, I'd agree with you. But FOX is so unapologetically partisan, it is clear any debate would only be broadcast if it furthered the conservative big picture, either by controlling post-debate spin, framing the campaign with questions, or simply providing cover for later blatant partisanship. Their overt politics is starting to hurt them with advertisers -- why help them in their cause to misinform and enable a particular ideology?

Again, conservatives have shown precisely how easy it is to manipulate the media through access. You reward this blackmail by pulling or softening stories to please those who can give you precious inside misinformation or cushy regulations. NOT engaging in it is punished by shoving us aside to appease those who blackmail you this way. So, this is the way you want the game to be played.

[adamyoung5]

Fox News Sunday is experiencing jet-lag, because it still has three conservatives --- Brit, Karla, & Bill --- on its "Round Table" inspite of the Democratic Majority win on Nov. 7, 2006.
So the conservative bias is exists.
Adam of CA.

[k-sozer]

MoveOn is also implying that the Congressional Black Caucus is "hostile to the interests of Black America" or is perhaps unable to make intelligent decisions without the guidance of MoveOn's deep thinkers. In fact, the Black Caucus is wise to reach out beyond their base to the Fox viewers. That's the "more free speech" type of solution that MoveOn abhors%u2014they are about stopping the speech of those they disagree with.

If Fox were as bad as its detractors say, they wouldn't showcase Democrats at all. In fact, Fox is "unbalanced" only by comparison to the partisans at other networks. (O'Reilly *is* partisan, I'm talking about the news portions here.) And if Fox has a bias, it is not "pro-conservative," it it "pro-Bush," who is not, as it turns out, much of a conservative.

[fullerg3]

Perhaps had Matthew Felling been subjected to the type of racist stunts by Fox: http://foxattacks.com/2007/03/fox_attacks_black_america.php
he'd better under stand the principled protest aganist the race baiting network.

Simply stated, this is not just a matter of Fox News granting access to the airwaves, it is a pure and simple PR move by Fox. In addition, I see no reason to think or evidence to conclude that their motives and intended use of the CBC or CBCI brand benefits anyone other than Fox.

And until News Corp demonstrates that, it no longer wants to be a bulletin board for GOP propaganda and a megaphone for loudmouth racist demagogues,it is clear that the interest of most Black Americans is poorly served by cooperation with Fox on any level.

As the political worm may be changing in America, Fox may have a need to change its public perception, its numbers lately suggest that.

If the leopard really wants to change its spots it has all the power it needs to do so - and no element of the CBC has any business being involved in what thus far has proven to be, nothing more than a rather cheap and transitory costume change. The change must be real not illusory for it to benefit Black folk.