Dems Shun Fox News

In an age where charges of “bias” flow fast and furious at any reporter or news outlet that doesn’t cover things precisely as a legion of critics thinks is fair, the issue of Fox News’ conservative tilt looms large. Portfolio’s Jeff Bercovici opened a can of worms yesterday by examining the argument, put forward by Fox News’ Chris Wallace, that Democratic presidential candidates refuse to appear on Fox in order to appease the far-left segment of the party’s base.

Bercovici agrees with Wallace, to a point. He says that Democrats don’t go on Fox because “they’re afraid of getting tripped up, caught in a flip-flop or a contradiction.”

But so what? Fox may have a point of view, but it doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it represents tens of millions of Americans. As I’ve said before, I don’t buy the argument that CNN and MSNBC are the ideological mirror-image of Fox, but certainly Chris Matthews and Dan Abrams have obvious biases that they don’t do much to disguise.

Fair enough, and he wraps up by saying that while Democrats will undoubtedly field loaded questions from Fox hosts, they should go on the network anyway, because ignoring a large segment of the American public is worse than being caught in a no-win situation.

Zack Roth over at the New York Observer takes issue with this:

Trying to play nice with Fox, Democrats have concluded, is like trying to play nice with Rush Limbaugh—it’s a game they believe they’re never going to win. Instead, they’ve decided to launch a challenge to Fox’s credibility. To me, that seems like smart long-range politics.

This is a tough one. Both Roth and Bercovici make good points, but in the end I have to go with Bercovici on this one, with a caveat or two. Ignoring Fox’s audience certainly doesn’t contain any net positives for Democratic candidates, and it makes them look petty and unsure of their own positions if they’re unwilling to face the heat from Fox’s partisans. That said, for a Democratic candidate to go on Hannity & Colmes or O’Reilly (even though I think O’Reilly would be much fairer than Hannity) would serve little purpose, as shows like this are pure entertainment—red meat for the true believers. It would be like Giuliani going on Air America—except that Hannity actually has an audience.

– By Paul McLeary

Popularity: 1% [?]

As an audience member of Air America (just though you should know we do exist) I’m inclined to think that it IS useless for anyone who doesn’t adhere to Fixed Noise and it’s blatant biased spin to not only watch it for information but to try and use it for the dissemination of information. It’s not just about challening Fox’s celebrity, it’s pointing to their lack of authenticity and resulting irrelevance. Fox has marginalized themselves, so let them be marginalized. The rest of us who want to be informed will watch PBS, listen to NPR or Air America and read the internet.

The article is based on the false premise that what Fox does is news or that that is what they intend to do. What Murdock does intend is to make money and he doesn’t much care how that happens as long as it makes a lot. He, like many of the greedy, are into the accumulation of money, not the good use of it.
That said, except for NPR, there is no news since I believe news requires reporting or examination and analysis of events and presenting them with perspective and in context so understanding of the event and its implications can be understood.

If FOX News is so biased, I wonder why I get ticked when I see a bleeding heart liberal spew junk on FOX channels. The major networks are so biased FOR liberal causes that I almost need a transfusion after seeing all that liberal blood spilled with their whining. The Demos are mighty stupid to pass up the FOX venue. Preaching to their own on liberal channels doesn’t convert any conservative or libertarian to the card carrying masses of “Commies-R-Us” It just preaches to the choir. How silly of me for mentioning that. If the Democrats get in, Comrades, our goose is cooked.

I have spent years studying fox news for the movie outfoxed and for the current videos, fox attacks.The point is not to allow them to claim to be a legitimate news org.They are not. By presidentals going on fox they give legitimacy to a network that should not get it.Same argument about why we fought the debates to be sponsored by Dems. It allows them to hide behind this and claim news. Not true.Nothing wrong wiht going on any outlet when its label is clear. To pretend Fox is other is a sham and harmful to democracy.

robert greenwald, director, outfoxed

If the Democrats win it’s the COMMIES who loose out. I’ll tell you what, I’d rather be the bleeding heart liberal any day than a Facist Conservative, who enjoys seeing kids and people in general starve, go with out medical aid so the fat cats in this country get all the benefits while the poor and working poor get nothing!
Typical response from a conservative, they like to see Blood spilled as long as it’s Not theirs!