An interesting article on the division within the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) as to whether or not to pull out of an agreement with Fox News to sponsor a Democratic presidential primary debate on Sept. 23 in Detroit.
A couple of points worth noting:
Kilpatrick, the chairwoman of the CBC, said she supported the agreement with Fox, even though it is likely to result in a debate among candidates considered long-shots to win the nomination.
“First of all, all the networks have a certain bias,†said Kilpatrick, who emphasized that the CBC Institute and not the CBC itself is sponsoring the debate.
Speaking of Fox, she said, “It’s the largest cable network in America. They have over 70 million subscribers. I don’t think at this point we pull out. The question we have to answer is, Do we want to reach as many Americans as we can?â€
Kilpatrick also noted that the CBC Institute will retain a large amount of control over the debate’s format.
I’m not so sure that the Dems do want their message to reach as many Americans as possible; they’re much more interested in pandering to the nutroots and their big-money bosses at MoveOn.org
The “FOX News will make us look bad” fears are completey un-founded. The CBC is in charge of the format and in selecting the moderators. FOX News can’t put words in the mouths of the Dem candidates. There is no way to take out of context a live debate.
I think that this point better refutes the nutroots’ claims of an inability to have a fair debate on Fox News than any facts that the nutroots put forth themselves that they can’t:
CBC leaders feel some sense of obligation to Fox because it was the only news network that agreed to televise a black caucus-sponsored debate before the 2004 Democratic presidential primary.
“The ask was sent out to everyone,†Kilpatrick said. “Four years ago, Fox was the only one that stepped up and they did a great job.â€
Where was CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC back in 2004?
Did you hear that? Fox News is capable of stepping up and doing a great job of hosting a Dem debate. Or do you think the CBC are a bunch of rightwing shills? Or just a bunch of liars?
___________
UPDATE — it looks like some on the Left are going to go with the “they live in a Fantasy world” spin (in effect calling her a liar and an idiot. Nice touch, Pam.):
Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI) makes these fantasy statements to try to justify the partnership…
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
“Big-money bosses at MoveOn.org”?
In any case, what’s it to you where Democrats feel they should get their message to voters?
Currently approximately zero Democratic voters watch Fox News. Why should the Democratic Party contribute to increasing Fox News ratings?
I’m a registered democratic voter and I vote split tickets. While I got rid of my television a year ago, previously I watched FNC. It’s pretty good and a refreshing change from the msm.
Preston, I think the danger is when one Party tries to dictate what is and is not a legitimate news source simply because they disagree with the news that’s being reported.
Trying to de-legitimitize voices of opposition is a dangerous and slippery slope.
Hey, I’m a conservative and former Republican (now an Independent) and watch MSN about as much as FOX. I usually go by the hosts and the type of material they have…whether it’s interesting or not. For news, I usually watch ABC because I really like Charlie Gibson. I think I’m pretty typical.
There’s a hit job out on Fox by the far left and everybody knows it.
Trying to de-legitimitize voices of opposition is a dangerous and slippery slope.
Um- a legitimate news channel should not be considered a ‘voice of opposition’ to the Democratic Party. The fact that Fox News can be considered so is exactly the point.
You know- if Fox News would just come out and say that they are a Republican mouthpiece I could imagine Democrats having a debate hosted by the channel. But as it is, the presence of the Democratic Presidential contenders only serves to put a veneer of neutrality on a very partisan source of information.
Your premise is completely wrong. The issue in the fox debate controversy is not whether Democrats should go on Fox – the sole issue is whether Democrats should use the unique occassion of a debate to prop Fox up on stage as a neutral and credible news source when they clearly are not. Fox would just use that credibility to elevate misinformation into the news cycle down the road.
Paul Begala summed it up:
The more Fox is seen as “fair and balanced,” the easier it is for the network to swift-boat Democratic candidates and propel misinformation into the mainstream media. Thank God Democrats are finally growing a spine and fighting back. No longer can Fox function as a Republican mouthpiece and expect us to put it on stage as a neutral news source.
To be clear, this is not a boycott, and it’s not about Democrats being afraid to go on Fox. It’s about how Fox is presented to the public when it voices its right-wing views. During the fight against Fox in Nevada, MoveOn suggested a co-sponsored Fox/Air America debate. Perfect. An avowedly progressive media outlet paired with the conservative Fox. The spirit of “Crossfire” lives. But MoveOn’s compromise was not accepted, and ultimately Fox lost everything.
——————————————————–
For those who have any doubt about Fox’s partisan Republican agenda, see the hugely viral YouTube videos at http://www.FoxAttacks.com
Also, MoveOn is not “big-money bosses” – that’s absurd. It’s 3.2 million members who give average contributions of $50. If you’re going to use Republican talking points, you have to fact check them first.
And if only CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR would come out and say they are merely DNC mouthpieces. Worse, they represent more and more the most extremist minority of the democratic party.
Also, MoveOn is not “big-money bosses†– that’s absurd.
No, what’s absurd is you pretending that MoveOn is not a “big money bosses” aka, George Soros, funded.
I’m sorry Adam…I’m trying not to laugh at you…seriously, I’m trying not to. But you make it so. damn. hard. not to.
That 3 minute loop of out takes from years of Fox News footage is your “proof” that Fox News is “clearly not a credible news source”?
Wait. I’m going to stop laughing before I proceed.
Whew. Ok. All better now.
hahahahah.
Sorry, I thought I was done.
_______________________
Because Fox News has the temerity to criticize the negative elements of black culture, and to call the hate-mongering race hustlers (Jesse Jackson and Big Al Sharpton) out for being, well, hate-mongering race hustlers — that makes them a “racist” and “non-credible” news source?
Puuuuhhhhleeasse.
Do you even know who James Myart is? Sean Hannity was right on the money for saying that Myart is a national disgrace. Hell, I called Myart out on this blog for being a race hustler.
Just because Fox News won’t jump on the plow and bury our men in the military at the drop of a dime (with little to no actual facts or real reporting), or bury some rich white kids who were framed by some black stripper, doesn’t make them “non-credible”, it means that there is more than one side to any story. Hell, often there is more than “one story”.
And Fox News more often than the other outlets take the side of not slandering our troops, or of actually reporting on the corruption flowing out of the Democratic party (since other outlets won’t cover it).
Bottom line? Fox News reports on news that damages the left and their message. It’s not “biased” to say that Rep. William Jefferson is a crook who should be ousted from office. It’s not “biased” to say that sen. Byrd is disassociated from reality and that he is the undisputed King of Pork. It’s not biased to say that Rep. Murtha is a dishonest goon known primarily for his propencity for back room deals.
It’s not biased to report on the good our troops our doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, or to report on their successes. And the fact that Fox News doesn’t gleefully “report” and paint our troops as civilian murdering, rampant raping, and mindless torturing baffoons, doesn’t make them “biased”.
It just makes them “not Liberally biased”.
Anyone who identifies Fox News as anything less than the hate-mongering, propaganda-spewing, yellow-journalism factory it is needs to consult a mental health professional.
I think John Jarzemsky has been taking hate mongering lessons from the likes of Al Sharpton.
This is really sad. I’m not classifying all democrats in this mold, but I will say that there are some who want to keep them “on the plantation” so they can make an example of them. It’s the worst kind of hypocrisy. Rather than address the problems and try to find answers and help, they take every opportunity to race bait and I, for one, am sick of it. I know several black people who have risen above that and are trying to make a difference. People like Peterson and LaShawn Barber.
And, don’t even dare to call me racist. I have a biracial grandddaughter who I would defend with my life.
And, then there’s this. I hope it plays. If not, go to Drudge. This was purposefully done by Matthews on MSNBC to race bait. You can see how Elizabeth Edwards tried to defer it, but he wouldn’t let her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbnH0cYHOcY
Common Mistakes When Building Network Cables…
When building network cables people often get confused about what’s important. It’s not hard to see why though. With the money spent in marketing the cable industry most manufacturers want you to think that one particular quality or another that they…