Promoted by Steven D
Cross-posted from MyLeftWing
.
The quotes in the headline are from “The Real Fox News Democrats”, the top feature story in today’s Salon, by Alex Koppelman–and while I don’t agree with everything he wrote, Koppelman got me thinking.
Koppelman has attacked many of the Democrats who appear on Fox–the paid commentators, the “regulars”–as belonging to one of three types:
It sounds harsh, but think of most of the Fox Democrats, at least those who appear on the opinion shows, which take up half the network’s airtime, as one of three types. They are either scary liberals, losers or enablers.
Harsh, but fair and balanced.
Koppelman continues:
…Fox also has a stable of regular commentators, some under contract to the network, who pop up frequently as representatives of the Democratic or progressive viewpoint. They do not appear to know what they have gotten into. Though these Democrats tell Salon they are doing their best to reach out and sway potential voters, they often seem to be used to further a conservative political agenda, fulfilling one of several roles that ultimately just helps the network’s right-of-center hosts make their arguments against liberals.
Oh, let’s just say it: Alan Colmes is a wimp, and Sean Hannity beats the guy to a pulp on a regular basis. I’m surprised Fox doesn’t make Colmes wear a “Dukakis ’88” t-shirt and fake devil horns.
Koppelman is not arguing that Democrats should not appear on Fox; he is only pointing out that those people Fox News has chosen to represent the Democratic point of view, such as Alan Colmes, Patrick Caddell, Susan Estrich, and Bob Beckel, are simply not effective in doing so.
Gee, you’d think that was deliberate on the part of Fox or something.
What I find most interesting about Koppelman’s article in today’s Salon is that Fox News hires Democrats who are “enablers” of the Republicans. For example, Fox recently hired two failed senate candidates, Harold Ford, a Tennessee Democrat, and former Republican Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.
“Fair and balanced”, right?
But as Koppelman points out:
this case is actually just another example of how Fox’s choices of Democrats help to skew the very terms of discourse in favor of conservatives; Ford’s politics are just left of George Will’s, while Santorum lists slightly to the right of Attila the Hun.”
In other words, the person “on the left” would comfortably fit into Reagan’s Republican Party, circa 1988, and the person “on the right” would fit in with–well, best not think about Rick “Man On Dog” Santorum any more than you have to (especially if you haven’t had your breakfast yet).
Democratic and liberal bloggers have already successfully lobbied for Democrats to boycott Fox for a presidential candidate debate that was to have taken place in Nevada this August, and MLWer Field Negro has written a passionate diary denouncing the efforts of the Congressional Black Caucus to have Fox sponsor Democratic presidential debates Oh No They Didn’t! Our own Maryscott O’Connor has appeared on Fox television and radio programmes.
And now the question: Is it time for Democrats in particular, and for liberals and progressives in general, to boycott Fox altogether? Is it hopeless to try and get the progressive point of view across on a network that is so obviously, deliberately skewed?
I take the point of view of Matt Stoller of MyDD.com:
“As long as you’re willing to treat Fox News as a political adversary, and you think you can use Fox News to further your arguments, you should do it, says Matt Stoller, a blogger at MyDD.com and a leader of the charge against the debates. “But don’t go on there assuming that Fox News is a neutral news outlet.”
Damn right. Show up on Fox with your sword and shield, ready to fight for progressive and liberal causes. Show no mercy and ask for none, because, as Scott Norvell, the Fox London Bureau chief reminds us:
“Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally,” wrote Norvell, “and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O’Reilly.”
Now on to the poll….
Look at this YouTube video of Representative Kucinich (D-OH)’s 22 March 2007 appearance on “Hannity and Colmes”:
The FOX motto: if your guest is saying something you don’t like, talk right over them, LOUDLY and rudely.
The FOX motto: if your LIBERAL guest is saying something you don’t like, talk right over them, LOUDLY and rudely.
Fox is pretty respectful to right-wingers.
The tolerance of Dems for members of their party who collaborate with Faux always amazes me. Much like the veteran legislators who are convinced they can’t stop the war, these “pundits” don’t seem to understand their own power.
Every time someone agrees to appear on Faux, there should be a barrage of complaints. (Of course, that means that we will have to designate the poor victims who have to watch it for the rest of us.)
…can put up a spirited defence.
John Edwards has appeared on Fox television more than 30 times, and has gotten his views across effectively in most cases.
Juan has obviously been compromised. They have a very heavy blackmail against him. Why would he behave in such a dishonorable and thoroughly compromised way?
His voice has risen in pitch since he joined Fox.
number 1– you don’t know what you are talking about and that is as bad if not worse when one is trying to be “fair and balanced”! Stop the crap. For your info- ford is also the newly elected head of the dlc you fool and that is one big problem that the dems have to deal with it. Ford -m fox stooge and dlc head.
As far as supporting fox by going on their entertainment programs, of course they shouldn’t. It offers no value to the dems. All it does is allow the faux entertainers one more opportunity to attack the dems. So, keeping it on the short side, screw fox, screw the dem stooges , and if you are vainly attempting to calm the waters, screw you!
Adjust the meds.