CBC Institute/FNC Debate: Commentary…
Public Eye’s Matthew Felling questions some Democratic Presidential candiates’ strategy vis a vis the CBC Institute/FNC Debate…
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.
Cause they couldn’t pull it off. Clinton went on FNS just before the path to 9/11 came out, this wasn’t an accident. He was trying to defend and define his legacy. These candidates have not exhibited enough fortitude or desire to rock the boat. It’s toes in the water and fingers in the air for these folks, waiting for a shoe to drop.
Posted by Hmmm - May 31, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
Comment by Hmmm — May 31, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
And the drum beats on….
Is there anyone, besides the far-left FNC-hating bluebloggers, that think this is a good strategy?
Comment by TBDave — May 31, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
Democrats should not debate at FOX because FOX is not a news network. It is a GOP propaganda network.
Holding a debate at FOX would be like holding a debate at sports network or gardening network.
FOX’s goal is not to inform the public of the important news of the day but to indoctrinate them with GOP propaganda.
Comment by MikeD — May 31, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
> FOX is not a news network. It is a GOP propaganda network.
You’d better tell Wesley Clark that he works at a GOP propaganda network.
Comment by johnny dollar — May 31, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
he problaby already knows that…but money talks.
Comment by Me — May 31, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
I like when MikeD comments, because his posts are always so different.
Someone should start a running tally on how many times his “copy/pasted” lines have shown up on this blog.
Comment by ImNotBlue — May 31, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
Someone should start a running tally on how many times his “copy/pasted” lines have shown up on this blog.
ImNotBlue: That assumes he has enough smarts to know how to cut and paste. He may be typing from scratch!
Comment by Ira — May 31, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
Ha, what a clever name ‘ImNotBlue’. A personal attack is always clever, too. How about commenting on the above commentary? I’d like to hear what you have to say regarding it?
Hmmm…Where are your facts?
TBDave…I think #6 was talking about you when he mentioned ‘copy/pasted’. Don’t you have another song to sing? Just kidding of course!
This controversy, and it is a big one at that, is good to kick back and forth. It’s a HOT TOPIC for sure, and who really knows what the outcome will be? As stated in the commentary, everyone is so partisan these days, and only listens and hear the things that will back up their point of view. That’s basic ‘bias’. My view, in the political scheme of things, this CBC/FNC debate will be a VERY little blip on the map in five months. Guaranteed.
Comment by Peoplepeople — May 31, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
Ira, do you have anything ’smart’ to say on this topic? Because your comment sure wasn’t smart. I have to hand it to you though, it appears you sure know how to ‘copy and paste’, and even personally attack at the same time. Go Get ‘em tiger.
Comment by Peoplepeople — May 31, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
Actually Peoplepeople, you seem to be the one that’s repeating yourself. You post in thread after thread and attack everyone. You’ve only been here a couple days, and you’re already wearing out your welcome.
Comment by TBDave — May 31, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
If you’ve been here so much longer TBDave, and I’ve read thread after thread of yours attacking people, aren’t you being a bit hypocritical? You should’ve worn out your ‘welcome’ long ago. I just feel that perhaps, you cannot take a good critic. If you choose to read what I have to say as personal, so be it. I’m having a fun time doing this. As you should be as well. Who cares if we don’t agree. It’s America TBDave, America.
Comment by Peoplepeople — May 31, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
People… I’ll say this, but after reading your posts thus far, you’re probably not going to read it.
Since you don’t know the crowd of regulars around here, you don’t understand my comment to be accurate. MikeD’d posts all start with the exact same sentence. And they’re followed up with a grab back of 5 or 6 other frequently recycled lines. That’s why there are always spaces between them… not a real paragraph, just a line of uninformed hate.
And I’ve mentioned my opinion on this issue a number of times… and since nothing is really changing, I don’t really feel the need to repeat myself over and over again. But since you asked… the Dems running from FOX only helps the interests groups encouraging them to do so. If they debate on FOX and FNC is out of line, the Dems become heroes and have great evidence against them. Conversely, if they debate and it goes well, then they’ve gotten their message out, and exposure is always good. So by not appearing on FNC, they’ve done nothing to help themselves, other than show their loyalty to the extreme wing of their party.
Happy?
PS
“ImNotBlue”… Is a reference to my real name. Why did you think it was referencing? You’re not making assumptions, are you?
Comment by ImNotBlue — May 31, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
One important point this article raises is the fact that the Democrats fall into the trap of letting their opponents define them, rather than controlling the message. Case in point - in regards to the funding bill for the Iraq war, they seemed to take the bait from the Republicans that failing to provide the funds would be “not providing the troops the money they need.” With this strategy of boycotting Fox, the Democrats are falling into the trap of being labeled as “soft,” and “unable/unwilling to answer tough questions about their platform.” This is not to say that the Democrats should let their opposition control their strategy, but if they want to shake off the stigma of being soft (they’ve been tagged as being soft on national security for quite some time now) then they need to step up and show confidence in their message…..do the Fox debates and don’t let people say they are afraid of Brit Hume and Chris Wallice.
I don’t think this is a make or break decision, but it just adds to the perception that the Democrats are on shaky ground when it comes to defending their principles and positions. Bad strategy.
Comment by FishOil — June 1, 2007 @ 5:16 am
The democrats are clearly afraid of being asked real questions instead of being thrown softballs like the rest of the left-leaning msm do. It’s funny how people on the left call Fox a mouthpiece for the GOP but fail to see that CNN, MSNBC and the rest of them are cheerleaders for the democrat party and will bash the GOP every chance they get. I guess they think the NYT is unbiased too.
Comment by PF — June 1, 2007 @ 7:07 am
Good morning you all…happy to see, ImNotBlue’s comment, appreciated. Makes sense. Yes, I was making an assumption regarding your name. Were you making an ‘assumption’ I wasn’t going to read your post? I did.
FishOil, I sort of agree a bit with you, but am leaning to disagree. I simply think the Dems are taking a stand against a pro-Republican cable station. Their not afraid of Brit Hume or Chris Wallace anymore than they would be afraid of Blitzer or Matthews. As I stated in my previous comment; in five months, this will be a blip on the map in the political scheme of things. The Dems will do what the do, and it will be forgotten. Because guess what? There will be some contraversy to replace this one up and coming.
As for #14, I disagree. The FNC is a mouthpiece for the GOP, as MSNBC is a mouthpiece for the the Dems (but to a lesser effective degree because their ratings are so low), but in time (in my opinion), MSNBC will overtake CNN in the ratings because of their clearly defined liberal stance on the issues (just as FNC has a cleary defined Repub stance). CNN has the leanings to the Dems, but not as much as they used to. I think out of all three networks CNN probably has the least ultra-biased coverage. That’s why when I hear many of you writing off MSNBC so quickly, don’t. I would watch them very carefully. They are reorganizing, moving their studios to the main headquarters at the Rock for additional on-air support, new graphics, new sets, and will have new programs come late summer. As I have said in the past, turning around a dump of a cable news channel cannot be an easy task, but Dan has an agenda, and it’s clear he’s headed in the right direction.
Comment by Peoplepeople — June 1, 2007 @ 8:47 am