Simple question: Should ANY Democrat/LW appear on Fox News?

[blondeatlast]

I have deliberately left out "other," (of course we need a LW equivalent of Fox--we all know that), but please add any comments. I think the issue deserves some serious debate.

Edit: I added "explain" to the yes vote because someone needs to offer me a rational explanation of what it accomplishes for us.

[unblock]

1. no. it only adds to their credibility

although i'd make an exception under one condition:

if democrats develop a media university, i.e., a training program for politicos, where we study and test and learn how to use their format effectively even while they are working against us; then and only then, would it be wise to make a few choice appearances.

but until then, and by and large regardless, it's best to boycott them and make it patently obvious that they are just plain republican tv.

[merbex]

4. You are dead on correct

but these ego driven politicians still think they are so much smsrter than everyone else

[robertarctor]

2. Don't even bother conferring any legitimacy on this sham

It's Roger Ailes' GOP disinformation channel. If I were Howard Dean, I'd advise everyone in the Democratic Party to steer clear of these lameass Punch & Judy shows.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. I vote "no", but I can certainly understand the "yes" argument.

I think a lot of people feel we need to at least try to access the large number of people that watch primarily Fox News and we need to get them our message somehow. Unfortunately, I feel they wind up hijacking that message anyway, so I don't think it's worth it. I'd rather just discredit them.

Then again, SOMEONE is going to be an opportunist asshole and use our name to make a name for themselves, so we'd probably be best off sending our most extreme liberal pitbulls to go fight.

[blondeatlast]

6. I can see your "yes" rationalization as well, but I think anyone

who watches Fox is pretty much already lost to us.

They seem to want to be told that they are right and any dissenting opinion is wrong, wrong, wrong.

There seems to be no room for nuance in their worlds, IMHO.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. No, I hear ya.

I'm only saying I can understand why someone would say yes.

[janx]

14. There is no conversation at Faux, only propaganda.

It's a waste of time to entertain the thought of real conversation or debate. Anyone holding a view different from the party line is nothing but a target.

A perfect example is what happened to Barney Frank recently. O'Reilly wanted him to repeat his criticism of a fellow democrat. Look what happened.

[Jane Austin]

32. Fox is on at my gym 17 hrs a day, and also in my internist's waiting room.

Viewers there aren't necessarily lost to us.

[Jai4WKC08]

36. That's a very good point

I don't frequent a gym, but just about every restaurant I go into that has a TV not running a sports network, seems to show Fox. I guess it figures, based on Fox's higher ratings, but I suspect it has more to do with what the management requires, whether corporate or small business owner.

I don't know that seeing an hour or two's worth of Fox will make any difference with the clientel, but the poor workers are likely to see quite a bit of it, especially in off-hours. Those are precisely the people we SHOULD be reaching, and a lot of 'em may not watch any other news.

Off subject a little bit, but the last time we ate somewhere where they had Fox on, a BD's Mongolian Barbecue (that's a chain, isn't it?), we asked the waitress to change the channel. We weren't obnoxious or anything, but made it clear enough we would leave if she didn't. She had to check with the manager, but then came back and changed it. I probably wouldn't have thought to ask if the room had been more crowded, but we were about the only ones there (in the smoking section) and the TV was right in front of us, so I figured it wasn't too much to ask. It's something y'all might think of doing when you can. They can only say no.

[Jane Austin]

37. I did grouse to my doctor and the gym has two sets going, so people do

have a choice.

[blondeatlast]

5. Still no explanations of the "yes" votes. Interesting. nt

[Adelante]

8. I voted Yes

I think it's critically important that the Democratic message be brought to all voters, even those who watch Fox or listen to Russ Limbaugh. Calling in to right wing radio and writing to conservative newspapers is something we should be doing. Getting face time on television is something only the Dem leaders and pundits can do. We have to stop talking to ourselves and start talking to the country. There are voters who may not think about how wrong Bush is because nobody is telling them. They watch Fox News. Little by little another version of reality *can* sink in to the swing sector, but not unless we're giving it out to the public in the first place.

Let's stop the circle jerk. The Dems need to take back the goddamned air waves!

Thank you for posting this important thread, blondeatlast.

[blondeatlast]

12. You have a good point, but I only see "weak" Dems appeaaring on Fox.

The Dems and LW that appear on Fox are NOT generally our pit bulls (if you've read "The Republkican Noise Machine" by David Brock, you are already familiar with this).

I think that's exactly what Fox wants, and counts on, and we end up looking weak and impotent--definitely not a positive message for the average Fox viewer.

Thanks for speaking up, btw. As one on the generally "no" side, I know my reasons, but I wanted to know what makes the "yes" to Fox people think.

I think it's a critical question right now.

[Jai4WKC08]

13. All the more reason strong Dems need to be there

The Fox token liberals have been chosen because they are weak and more than a little "goofy" in one way or another. Or at least likely to appear that way to Fox viewers. That's the Fox game.

But they want to make a buck as much as the next media outlet. They will carry guests who can attract an audience. And those people don't have to be weak or wishy-washy, altho they need to speak to the Fox audience. Which is not, btw, completely wing-nut and unreachable. There are a lot of people in the middle, or leaning right but disaffected with the current regime. Those people can be reached with the truth, and they need to hear it somewhere. They're not gonna tune in to AAR or Democracy Now.

Wes Clark appears on Fox with some regularity. Every couple of weeks or so. He knows he's walking into a lions den--a hostile environment--but he's smart enough to use Fox to his advantage. To all of our advantage. That's what other strong Dems need to be doing. Otherwise the only people who are left are the weak goofy ones that Fox wants people to believe are typical.

It goes beyond Fox you know. We all need to be visiting right-wing and centrist blogs and message boards, and calling in to right wing radio. It's nice and "safe" (relatively) here at DU, but it doesn't help us win elections.

[Adelante]

15. What happened with Martin Frost, do you know?

He was supposed to become a Fox commentator for the Dems, but I haven't heard anything since the press release.

This is from News Hounds: We watch FOX so you don't have to:

Way to Go, Wesley Clark!

General Wesley Clark proved that a Democrat CAN hold a FOX host at bay.

During an interview that aired June 25, 2004 (5:03 PM) Gibson consistently tried to interrupt the General's comments. But Clark just kept talking and Gibson never got to ask his usual "big" questions, ones that frequently mimic the RNC's talking points.

Clark had some pointed and important things to say to the FOX viewers about the war in Iraq and how it was bungled. He also elaborated on the dismal job we've been doing in our foreign relations and briefly presented the European side of the issues.

This did not go over well with Gibson, who is a total xenophobe (which means "one fearful of foreigners"). He seems to think that everyone in the rest of the world is out to get us, especially - dare I say it? - France! The title of his new book sums it up: Hating America: The New World Sport.

It was refreshing to see an articulate, experienced guest express a moderate viewpoint concisely and clearly.

It was especially gratifying to hear it with no FOX Partyspeak interjected at inappropriate times!

http://www.newshounds.us/2004/06/27/way_to_go_wesley_clark.php

It can be done.

Here is an audio of the Asman smackdown from Fall 2003:

http://www.blogd.com/images/clarkonfox.wav


Sorry for the Clark "infommercial" but I am trying to make a point and it works. :hi:

And that point is that Dems can stand up to these Fox bullies and get our side across. They have to be strong about it. They have to be ready for it. But it can be done. And the party has to put the right speakers out there. I think Dean said he is working on something like this, if I am remembering correctly. Also, the Congressional Dems are in spring training (this is in another thread about Dems toughening up, but the DU reaction has been negative and IMO the purpose misunderstood).

[kevinmc]

7. No way........

Let all the Right-wing Hacks on FOX argue with themselves. It would destroy FOX.

[seaglass]

10. I voted yes. I don't believe we should ever give up. What if

2% of the audience can be moved - is that nothing?

My husband and my mom both watch Fox on occasion, they will never be lost to us.

[unblock]

16. avoiding one particular outlet is not "giving up"

you have to do a cost-benefit analysis. yes, perhaps you can move 2% of the fox viewership to your side. however, given how you know things will be edited, mikes cut off, how you'd be shouted down, and derided after you leave, you also know that the other 98% will become more firmly entrenched in their views as a result of your appearance; indeed, their audience might even increase!

as against that, if all democrats boycotted fox news, the fox viewership would be forced to realize that their "news" is not "fair and balanced" at all. this would likely do FAR more good for our cause than the most brilliant appearance could possibly do.

[seaglass]

28. That's not a cost-benefit analysis, that's just your opinion. I think

it is giving up if Dems decide that they cannot reach the Fox audience and cedes them all to the GOP.

Who do you think is going to stop watching Fox if Dems don't appear? The majority of Fox' audience really doesn't care if they are fair and balanced, it's just a nice talking point.

The people who do care whether Fox is fair and balanced are the same ones that we should be able to reach. Can't reach them if we're not talking to them.

[unblock]

29. on the contrary, i think the majority of fox viewer DO care

at least, i think they want to believe that it's "fair and balanced". they don't bother to check to see if it's true, but they like to think it.

stripping them of this illusion would go a long way toward undermining fox news' legitimacy.

[Jai4WKC08]

31. Well, at least we're agreed on that, but...

I don't see how keeping strong Democrats off Fox is going to undermine their legitimacy. Given that they have no problem finding or manufacturing Democrats who will fulfill their agenda.

Have you ever watched Clark on Fox? He's damn effective. Yeah, they usually follow him with some RW hack or politico who tries to take apart what he's said. But I usually stay tuned long enough to see what they'll follow him with and I haven't noticed that any have been very good at taking him down. He always goes on live, so far as I've noticed, so they don't have a chance to chop up what he's said (altho I've seen them do that with "news" reporting of things he's said elsewhere). Maybe that's a tactic other Dems can exploit.

Because I want to add that, like WesDem above, I'm not saying that Clark is the only one who can handle the crap that Fox pulls. Just the opposite--I said up-stream that it's my opinion we need lots of strong Dems taking their turns in the nuthouse. But I honestly don't know if they are, since I don't watch Fox unless I hear in advance that Clark or something particularly important is gonna be aired (ant the latter never happens).

I will grant you one thing, tho. Clark has one advantage on Fox that few if any other Dems share. Regardless of how many liberals may react (and I doubt any of us watch Fox anyway), his rank and titles do in fact help his credibility with the typical Fox viewer. And I've never seen Fox fail to use them, both on the screen and in how they refer to him. Perhaps the former is a condition he sets before agreeing to go on. Perhaps they know that same audience will be offended if they don't afford him the appropriate respect. So I can see that it may be a tougher sell for even the strongest Dems who don't have that advantage. But I can't believe they don't exist.

A fwiw... I've seen--we all have--many Dems, strong and weak, Clark included, appear on CNN and MSNBC and have them followed by Repubs given every opportunity to refute or belittle what they've said. We can't avoid every network just because our people will be abused, because they will be on every one of 'em.

[blondeatlast]

11. If there is no dissenting view presented on Fox, what then?

Is their bias exposed, and therefore they lose credibility, or does it strengthen their message?

[bunny planet]

17. I always ask myself this question.

If no one from the Democratic party and no liberal pundits, journalists, and authors showed up to any Faux news program ever, the network would die on the vine. They need the opposition to shout down, and belittle. If they only had neo-cons and kool-aid drinking and sychophantic Republicans to talk to they would not be able to do so much damage. People would stop watching, they would become irrelevant and quickly. Why don't Dems who appear on these shows realize this?

[AllegroRondo]

18. If Dems refused to go, FOX would invent some

Seriously, I think they would.

[janx]

19. I've asked myself the same thing many times.

Even if a Dem is not belittled while on one of those shows, you can bet s/he will be belittled later by those clowns. It's how they make their money.

[Jai4WKC08]

20. They will always be able to find "liberals"

Who are willing to take their money, no matter how badly they're degraded and used. Alan Colmes, and that gal who worked for Dukakis... forget her name (I don't watch Fox often). And if they couldn't find any, they could get someone to play the part. It's television and they're not stupid.

Fox has the largest market share, by far, of any of the cable news networks. We can't afford to just write them off.

As the OP says, we desparately need a liberal counterpart, as we all well know. But even that won't get us off the hook to just let Fox play their game without challenge.

[x_y_no]

35. And they always have O'Reilly's game ...

of saying "We've asked so-and-so to come on and defend her/his liberal view, but of course they won't do that because they're afraid."

Better to go real prepared and kick some ass.

[Texas_Kat]

21. I voted yes.

For the most part, Fox watchers have a narrow view of the world and if Democrats avoid sharing their viewpoints with that audience, the RW wins--not because their views are right, but because we just forfeited.

Staying in our very own comfort zone is no way to win elections. Shouting in our own echo chambers will not win converts.

I assure you that most Fox watchers do not consider Fox a right wing media outlet. They don't pay enough attention to characterize it that way. It's just "the news".

If there are no alternate views presented (not just by strong, but) by our STRONGEST Democrats, Fox's slant to the news becomes reality for them.

[janx]

24. It's not an either/or situation. There are alternatives to staying

in our comfort zone or echo chamber that do not necessarily include appearances on Faux News.

Faux News is the echo chamber of the *extreme* right.

[Texas_Kat]

25. I respectfully disagree.

I'm not willing to leave any safe haven for the right wing talking heads to influence 'casual' watchers. There is an interesting article on just this subject at AJC (I won't quote the whole thing here, but you should read it in the light of "know your enemy".

http://tinyurl.com/8pa4p

"A study released last summer by Pew Research Center concluded that 48 percent of its devotees do not consider themselves conservative."

and more from AJC
CABLE NEWS MARKET SHARE*

Fox News 46 percent
CNN 24 percent
MSNBC 12 percent
CNN Headline News 11 percent
CNBC 7 percent

*since last December

Source: Nielsen Media Research

[sybil]

22. Progressives on FOX?

Certainly it's not for the "weak-hearted"...But there is no damn reason why strong-hearted-Dems should not go on FOX and set the record straight. What better place?

caveat: Following a majorly-collective-spine-re-alignment and assuming a strong-consistent-credible-Dem-Party-message they should storm the place and, *if* 'we' know what 'we' stand for...otherwise probably not wise to appear on any so-called news, cable or otherwise.

...and how is appearing on FOX that much different than appearing on CNN? Interviews on AirAmerica are only preaching to the choir.

...and rumor has it that several "General Smackdowns" have taken place on FOX.

I voted YES.

[murdoch]

23. Should any Democrat appear on NBC News?

NBC is owned by GE which is a major military contractor. It is controlled by it's majority shareholders, whom comprise less than 2% of the US population. How different really are Fox and NBC? They don't seem that different to me.

Anyone watching PBS can see how they're almost at the point of having commercials now. And anyone following the news knows how the conservatives like Tomlinson have been somewhat successful in taking over PBS.

The only decent television news I get is from certain public access TV shows and sometimes C-SPAN. PBS hasn't been totally destroyed yet but they've been losing to Tomlinson and company lately.

[sybil]

26. About PBS...

Maybe you haven't signed the petition?

Yesterday, we asked you to listen to Bill Moyers' historic speech at the close of the National Conference for Media Reform in St. Louis. Many of you did. So many, in fact, that our Web server slowed to a crawl. Our apologies to those of you who couldn't download the speech.

The full transcript is available now at www.freepress.net/news/8120.

Take a few moments to read Bill Moyers' speech and then take action to save public broadcasting. More than 60,000 Free Press activists have already joined a call for the resignation of Corporation for Public Broadcasting Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson and the creation of town hall meetings nationwide to put the public back into public broadcasting.

Before we deliver their signed petitions to Tomlinson's desk, we need 60,000 more Americans to join the call. If you haven't taken action on this already, sign the petition at: www.freepress.net/action/pbs

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

27. Galloway vs. Hannity: I would pay money to see that

But, of course, none of those chickensh*ts would DARE to debate someone like Galloway.

[sharonking21]

30. Our "fighters" should appear

Those able to stand up to these creeps should appear on Fox. Not all who watch are lost to us. Many mostly apolitical people watch this but still, they vote. And among those are people who watch Fox for strange reasons...for example, my 90-year-old aunt watches it because she is deaf and they have the biggest boldest captions and most readable type for the services for the deaf--I mean she is 90 and her eyes are not all that good either.

[ihaveaquestion]

33. Yes, but only if they're ready to ATTACK!!!! n/t

[FrenchieCat]

34. Only those Democrats who know how to KICK ASS

should appear on Fox. Those wearing Pink Tu-tus should stay out of the limelight, altogether.

Many who watch Fox watch it because they have to, not because they choose to. Some husband may turn on Fox....so the wifey HAS to watch it.....and there is nowhere that says that everyone in one household is always going to vote exactly the same. So those poor souls, who have no control over the remote, need some exposure to other voices.

I went to get my car washed the other day....and Fox was the channel on the TV that folks had to watch in the car wash waiting room. I asked the cashier if there was another channel that we could turn to?...cause Fox makes me ill. She said that management gave only two option of channels to watch; Fox or ESPN. She said she hated sports, so this was it. And I'm located in the East Bay in Northern California....so I can imagine what's going on in the south.

Point is....in many Gyms, Car Washes, McDonalds, Sports bars, and other public sphere, folks are literally forced to watch Fox.....and they need to see Democrats counter the propaganda message that they are hit with on a daily basis before their brains are thoroughly washed.

Plus, don't fool yourselves; CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, and NBC are really a lot more like FOX than we want to recognize(just more subtle). So is the answer to have Zero Democrats appearing to counter the propaganda presstitute bullshit?

Rush Limbaugh doesn't have any liberals ever show up or call up on his show to counter him.....and who does that hurt? Not him.

[rndmprsn]

38. no it only reinforces the lie that faux is a respectable news source.

they only twist what we say when any dem goes on there to give our side and then we get bullied and screamed at by o-reilly and hannity, back-stabbed by brit hume, and ripped apart by ann coulter...

why would one subject ones self to all that for now perceiveable gain...well i guess no matter what we say, leibermann will still go on so faux will still have "balance". </sarcasm>

[Texas_Kat]

39. Self-delete

[blondeatlast]

40. A little ____ie-poo...

:kick:, that is!

[Nothing Without Hope]

41. I vote yes. A well-spoken real Democrat is better than a fake straw man

that they will set up to be demolished by their fascist enablers. Without a real Democrat, it will ALL be scripted and there is no chance for any truth at all. Many, many people watch Fox and some of them are truly unaware that they are being lied to, that there is another point of view.

I think an attempt has to be made. If someone gets too close to the truth and isn't invited back, that's the breaks. At least they tried.

[lynch03]

42. All democrats should boycott FAUX NEWS

That way it'll force them to become more objective concerning issues..

[haypops]

43. I think it is working

I think that the increasing appearance by some democrats and just the power of the liberal message is having an effect. Although I don't have a link, I did read that Reilly's ratings are dropping month to month for quite a while now.

[sybil]

44. O'Reilly who?

:shrug:

[BeachBuckeye]

45. They cannot resist the "face time"

I have had many household name Democrats on my show but I have had just as many say they "can't make it because I'm busy" and then show up on Fox. I think its a disgrace that a single one of them appears on such a disinformation network. They only act as cannon fodder for the Fox people who want to make them look foolish.

Lets face it. They are politicians and 99% of them are in it for themselves and no one else. Where are all of the Paul Wellstones?

[sybil]

46. Howard Dean on MTP

Howard should go on FOX - definitely! He's got the starch!

I really don't begin to understand the tally on this poll.

[VOX]

47. If "legit" Democrats don't appear, Faux will just make up some phony Dems.

"To give an opposing viewpoint, here's J. Lefty Bleedingheart, who thinks that our troops aren't worth supporting. Mr. Bleedingheart, when did you stop beating your wife?"

To a large extent, Faux and cable news does this already. :grr: