It's time to take on Fox!

[BlueStar]

Quick ************ Fox News is scheduled to host a debate for the Democratic presidential candidates in August in Nevada. It is still unclear just what politician(s) in NV are behind this scheme (though, Reid is getting a lot of blame), but the netroots is pissed and getting very vocal about it. Combine that with the latest Obama bashing by Fox and we now have a campaign against Fox led by MyDD.com, DailyKos.com, and MoveOn.org...

An article about it: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/48286/

New website for a campaign against Fox: http://foxattacks.com

E-mail from MoveOn.org:

Dear MoveOn member,

The Democratic Party of Nevada just announced plans to let Fox News host a presidential primary debate.1 But Fox isn't a legitimate news channel. It's a right-wing mouthpiece like Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report—repeating false Republican talking points to smear Democrats.

Fox has already tried to skew the '08 race by accusing Senator Barack Obama of attending a terrorist school. CNN immediately exposed the charge as false,2 and Obama hit back by refusing to appear on Fox—sending them scrambling.3 Democrats can force Fox to be fair and balanced by fighting back hard.

Can you sign this petition asking the Democratic Party of Nevada to drop Fox as its partner for the presidential primary debate?

The full text of the petition is: "Fox is a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel. The Democratic Party of Nevada should drop Fox as its partner for the presidential primary debate."
Clicking here will add your name to the petition:
http://civic.moveon.org/foxdebate/o....010-Mfru18&t=3

It's very important to also invite our friends to sign this petition. If ever there was a battle where we could beat Fox, this is it—since Democrats will make the ultimate decision, not Fox executives. But to be convinced, Democratic leaders need to see a growing public backlash.

We'll deliver the petition signatures to the Democratic Party of Nevada and let petition signers know what next steps they can take to make a difference.

When you click the petition link, you'll see a great new YouTube video from filmmaker Robert Greenwald called "Fox Attacks: Obama." It exposes Fox's numerous attacks on Senator Obama—saying he attended a terrorist school, belittling his race, and implying that his name sounds like that of a terrorist.

Fox has also spread false smears about Hillary Clinton this year.4 Plus, when Democrats trusted Fox to host a presidential debate in 2003, Fox undermined Democrats with on-screen headlines like "Democratic Candidates Offer Grim View of America."5

We can fight back. The Washington Post reported that "the Obama camp has 'frozen out' Fox News reporters and producers in the wake of the network's major screw-up in running with the erroneous Obama-the-jihadist story." "'I'm still in the freezer,' one Fox journalist said." Fox News CEO Roger Ailes has personally called Obama twice to smooth relations.3

As the 2008 cycle begins, we need to show Fox there will be serious repercussions for being part of right-wing smear jobs—and we need to show voters they cannot trust Fox for news.

Can you sign this petition asking the Democratic Party of Nevada not to partner with Fox for a presidential primary debate?

The full text of the petition is: "Fox is a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel. The Democratic Party of Nevada should drop Fox as its partner for the presidential primary debate."

Clicking here will add your name to the petition:
http://civic.moveon.org/foxdebate/o....010-Mfru18&t=4
Thank you for all you do.

–Noah, Adam G., Marika, Wes, and the MoveOn.org Civic Action Team
Thursday, February 22nd, 2007

[silverfrick]

It is radical and ignorant thought like this that holds this party back. Every major network has a skew. It just so happens that 1 of the major 4 networks skews right. Sorry that conservatives have a small fraction of the airwaves! NBC, ABC, CBS & for cable, CNN & MSNBC are all very much on your side buddy.

[redbull]

this thread is boring, we all know that polls mean nothing

[Junebug]

crybabies.

[Corganist]

So let me get this straight: Fox News is a shameless right-wing mouthpiece...so much so that they're hosting a Democrat presidential debate?

Are these groups afraid Fox is going to overdub the candidates' words like in kung fu movie with words that make them look unelectable? Or that they'll have Sean Hannity on a telestrator drawing devil horns and a mustache on Hillary as she speaks? Come on.

[DeviousJ]

Why are they even letting Fox do it? If they're looking for ratings and to reach out to conservative viewers then there's obviously going to be some risk to that, just calculated risk. They're probably pretty aware of Fox's reputation, I think the question is why they decided it was a good idea on balance (lololol)

[Junebug]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Why are they even letting Fox do it? If they're looking for ratings and to reach out to conservative viewers then there's obviously going to be some risk to that, just calculated risk. They're probably pretty aware of Fox's reputation, I think the question is why they decided it was a good idea on balance (lololol)

there you go again being all articulate, DeviousJ.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Why are they even letting Fox do it? If they're looking for ratings and to reach out to conservative viewers then there's obviously going to be some risk to that, just calculated risk. They're probably pretty aware of Fox's reputation, I think the question is why they decided it was a good idea on balance (lololol)

I think they're obviously just reaching out to viewers, period. Its always a better idea for a party to have its debate seen by more people instead of less, isn't it?

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I think they're obviously just reaching out to viewers, period. Its always a better idea for a party to have its debate seen by more people instead of less, isn't it?

Heh, well not really - you can think of any number of media outlets you wouldn't want to be associated with, so it's not like a bigger audience is necessarily a good thing all the time. I think part of the worry is that this will lend legitimacy to Fox's earlier (and likely future) bullshit

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Junebug

there you go again being all articulate, DeviousJ.

the stars have aligned!

[Junebug]

do you think, perchance, that the democrats feel that they might be able to defend themselves on Fox? As in, refute any asinine statements/questions posed by the station, and come out sounding smart or articulate?

I don't see why else they'd do it, but it should be interesting nevertheless.

[DeviousJ]

Well I don't think the station itself will be too involved, in terms of running the Q&A session or really editing things to make the democrats look bad (at least not when it goes out live) - I think they probably just video it and broadcast it, and since Fox has a huge market share and is watched mainly by people they want to swing over to their side (and who may not otherwise give the Democrats the time of day) they're hoping to make some inroads with a different demographic. I mean really they're looking at more publicity, and maybe even some legitimacy from having Fox host it (in the eyes of conservatives). It's just a double-edged sword

[Effloresce]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Why are they even letting Fox do it? If they're looking for ratings and to reach out to conservative viewers then there's obviously going to be some risk to that, just calculated risk. They're probably pretty aware of Fox's reputation, I think the question is why they decided it was a good idea on balance (lololol)

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Heh, well not really - you can think of any number of media outlets you wouldn't want to be associated with, so it's not like a bigger audience is necessarily a good thing all the time. I think part of the worry is that this will lend legitimacy to Fox's earlier (and likely future) bullshit.

So by allotting airtime exclusively for Democratic candidates to air their views, Fox News legitimizes everything else on the channel? That makes no sense at all. If the debate was hosted by Comedy Central would you worry that the Daily Show and the Colbert Report would be legitimized as news programs? Surely not.

Originally Posted by Junebug

do you think, perchance, that the democrats feel that they might be able to defend themselves on Fox? As in, refute any asinine statements/questions posed by the station, and come out sounding smart or articulate?

I don't see why else they'd do it, but it should be interesting nevertheless.

Where do you get the idea that Fox would ever pull something like that? I'm well aware that they have a bias, but they've never sunk low enough where there should be any fear that they'll ask "When did you stop beating your wife?" sort of questions in a presidential debate. I can understand that people dislike the channel for various reasons, but the cartoon villain caricature of them is a little much.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

So by allotting airtime exclusively for Democratic candidates to air their views, Fox News legitimizes everything else on the channel? That makes no sense at all. If the debate was hosted by Comedy Central would you worry that the Daily Show and the Colbert Report would be legitimized as news programs? Surely not.

No, if Fox is behaving in a biased way towards the Democratic party (especially the whole Obama thing) and then the Democrats respond by saying 'sure, we'd love for your network to cover the debate!' then clearly that makes Fox's conduct seem perfectly appropriate and a non-issue, which legitimizes them. It's difficult to claim bias when the people supposedly affected are actually supporting them

[Nimrod's Son]

FOX is as far right as NBC/MSNBC is left. I doubt there would be gnashing of teeth if NBC hosted a Rebuplican debate, but organizations like moveon.org always exaggerate things because they want to be seen as centrist.

[Nimrod's Son]

ha, i just read that site. Drudge is a "mouthpiece of the Bush admin"? Drudge routinely bashes Bush. See, they should have used Hannity there, but I suppose in their attempts to make it more "diabolical" of a conspiracy they needed more players.

also all i see repeatedly mentioned is this:
"The Democratic Party of Nevada just announced plans to team up with Fox News for a presidential primary debate."

So.. is it truly with FOX News or simply a FOX affiliate in Nevada? There's a huge difference, but I can't find any information which says so so I'm leaning towards an affiliate, which would make moveon's assertions incredibly shady

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

No, if Fox is behaving in a biased way towards the Democratic party (especially the whole Obama thing) and then the Democrats respond by saying 'sure, we'd love for your network to cover the debate!' then clearly that makes Fox's conduct seem perfectly appropriate and a non-issue, which legitimizes them. It's difficult to claim bias when the people supposedly affected are actually supporting them

That's pretty ridiculous. I think everyone is very well aware of the objections to the way Fox handled the Obama "madrassa" story. I don't think anyone is going to assume that all is forgiven and that Democrats now condone that sort of thing just because the Democratic candidates appear on the channel in a debate. Give me a break.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

That's pretty ridiculous. I think everyone is very well aware of the objections to the way Fox handled the Obama "madrassa" story. I don't think anyone is going to assume that all is forgiven and that Democrats now condone that sort of thing just because the Democratic candidates appear on the channel in a debate. Give me a break.

It's not just appearing on the channel, it's choosing that channel to exclusively host and broadcast a debate which has been planned by the Democrats. There's a big difference. If you object to a channel's portrayal and presentation of your candidates, you don't show that objection by granting them exclusive rights to the presentation of one of your major events. It's pretty simple

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

It's not just appearing on the channel, it's choosing that channel to exclusively host and broadcast a debate which has been planned by the Democrats. There's a big difference. If you object to a channel's portrayal and presentation of your candidates, you don't show that objection by granting them exclusive rights to the presentation of one of your major events. It's pretty simple

So you think they should be childish and hold a grudge? I know its politics and all, but they can still defend principle without acting like 12 year olds can't they?

[redbull]

all debates should be on cspan. end of story.

[homechicago]

Originally Posted by redbull

all debates should be on cspan. end of story.

.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by redbull

all debates should be on cspan. end of story.

If anything they should all be on PBS, because our fucking tax dollars are already going to waste on it and it's free for those without cable.

[TuralyonW3]

They should be on VH1 actually.

[Effloresce]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

FOX is as far right as NBC/MSNBC is left. I doubt there would be gnashing of teeth if NBC hosted a Rebuplican debate, but organizations like moveon.org always exaggerate things because they want to be seen as centrist.

MSNBC is pretty centrist.

CNN even moreso, especially lately. A true leftist network would not air such a closed-minded and generally retarded view of atheism in America.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Effloresce

MSNBC is pretty centrist.

Unfortunately you tend you judge what's centrist by what you believe in and how much you agree with it.

[homechicago]

pbs and c-span. less sideline chatter, more of just listening to the candidates themselves.

[BlueStar]

Dems in uproar over Fox plan to cover debate
Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, February 23, 2007

The first presidential primary is 11 months away, but liberals are arguing among themselves over how to best reach new voters -- and whether to cooperate with one of their biggest media nemeses. Their dilemma:

Should we Fox?

"Fox," as in partner with the Fox News Channel. Liberal bloggers and the online political powerhouse MoveOn.org launched a campaign Thursday to persuade the Nevada Democratic Party to boot Fox News as the broadcaster of the state's August Democratic presidential debate.

The reason, according to an online letter MoveOn sent to 2 million of its members Thursday, is that "Fox is a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel. The Democratic Party of Nevada should drop Fox as its partner for the presidential primary debate." Joining the chorus Thursday was liberal filmmaker Robert Greenwald, the director of the anti-Fox film, "Outfoxed," who released a video online of Fox's coverage of Democratic candidates.

But the Nevada party organizers -- and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean -- said Thursday that while they may not think much of Fox's reporting, they want to reach out to viewers of the largest cable news network, one with double the number of prime-time viewers of CNN. And one whose believability is much higher with Republicans than Democrats, according to a 2005 study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

So why not reach out, party officials say? At a time when President Bush's approval rating hovers around 30 percent, there may be disgruntled conservative voters to be found there. The network has broadcast Democratic debates before, and is close to announcing a second debate it will air in the next week.

And Fox's reaction to this controversy? They're content to watch liberals fight from a distance, and network officials hope that the buzz will send more viewers to their debate broadcast. Presidential debates ordinarily double their audience, and this quarrel could pad that number with those curious about Fox.

Already, MoveOn has accused Fox of trying to skew the election through its misleading reporting on Democratic candidates, particularly Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

Last month, Fox reported -- and later backed off its report -- that Obama attended a radical Muslim school in Indonesia as a child. It was widely debunked by other media outlets, including CNN.

In a Feb. 5 appearance on the Fox News program, "Hannity and Colmes," Fox News commentator Dick Morris said Clinton and former President Bill Clinton were behind the smear. But when pressed by co-host Alan Colmes for what evidence he had, Morris said, "No, I just -- obviously they were." And some of the network's hosts have mocked Obama's middle name, "Hussein."

Bloggers like Matt Stoller of mydd.com are more worried about what the network's post-debate spin could be. When Fox broadcast a Democratic candidate debate in September 2003, Stoller noted that the network's post-debate story was headlined, "Democratic Candidates Offer Grim View of America." It cut away early from the show, Stoller said, giving conservative pundit William Bennett first crack at post-debate analysis.

"This is part of an ongoing struggle to convince Democrats and journalists to stop taking Fox News seriously as a credible news outlet," Stoller wrote in an e-mail this week to supporters and others. "It's also part of a tug of war with the media and within the Democratic Party itself, one that will continue to play out over the course of the 2008 campaign."

For now, the Democratic Party's leaders are ready to work with Fox even if they get burned by the network that uses the tagline "fair and balanced" for its coverage. The lead player is Dean, who was elected as party chair on a strategy to appeal to voters in all states, a strategy that was supported by many liberal bloggers.

"This is about talking to voters, not a network," Dean said Thursday. "While the Fox News Channel rarely has coverage that is fair and balanced, we believe that Fox viewers, who are potential voters, should have the opportunity to see a debate between our candidates. These forums provide an important unfiltered opportunity for potential voters to see Democrats without the bias of the network."

MoveOn organizer Adam Green told The Chronicle in an e-mail: "Everybody supports reaching out to new people. Fox is giving Democrats one day of news coverages specifically to have legitimacy while smearing Democrats the other 364 days this year." Green noted that 75 percent of the 10,000 MoveOn members in Nevada said the party shouldn't be partnering with Fox.

Nevada Democratic Party spokeswoman Kirsten Searer sought to tamp down concerns about Fox's influence on the broadcast. Each major decision about the debate, Searer said, "from the background on the stage to the debate moderator, will be reached by mutual agreement of the state party, Western Majority Project (a coalition of western Democratic politicians) and Fox News.

"A 50-state strategy means talking to every American. The debate in August is not an endorsement of Fox. Instead, it is an effort to reach out to Fox viewers. We will not win elections if we don't win over new people."

Fox News is treating this as an issue for Democrats to work out among themselves. Marty Ryan, Fox's executive producer of political programming, shrugged off complaints about the network's coverage cited in Thursday's campaign.

"That's the great thing about America. You're free to have those opinions," Ryan said. "Besides, they're probably drawing more attention to our coverage of the debate."

Jane Fleming, executive director of Young Democrats of America, appears as a guest on Fox News two or three times a week, often as the lone liberal tangling with some of Fox's conservative personalities. She doesn't support, as some have advocated, freezing out the network -- refusing to appear on-air as a liberal counterpoint.

"The thing is, if we don't appear, there are plenty of Democrats Fox will find who aren't really Democrats -- they're just people who will agree with the host all the time," Fleming said. "We need to be on there pushing back."

[BlueStar]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Unfortunately you tend you judge what's centrist by what you believe in and how much you agree with it.

MSNBC is regarded as the most balanced of the three news networks.

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

There's a big difference. If you object to a channel's portrayal and presentation of your candidates, you don't show that objection by granting them exclusive rights to the presentation of one of your major events. It's pretty simple.

Exactly.

However, it could also be somewhat of a smart move (albeit not the most effective move and resulting in little increase if any of conservative turnout). I'm not sure what the rules for the NV presidential caucus are (all I am aware of and all that is on the NV Sec. of State's site are the primary and general election rules), but they are making changes and trying to model their caucuses very similar to Iowa's. Iowa's caucuses are closed (meaning you have to be a registered Dem to caucus for a Dem), but they do allow day of voter registration. So, you can go to a caucus, change your voter reg to a Dem (or Repub), caucus for your candidate of choice, and then switch your party back to whatever on your way out. This could be relevant for NV because the NV Dem caucus is in January and the NV Repub primary isn't unil April (and by April the Repub nominee will already have been determined). So, if Repub voters in NV want to have a say in things, they'll need to caucus for a Dem (either one they like or one they think can be easily beaten by a Repub). And getting Repubs/conservatives to attend the Dem caucus is basically what is alluded to in the previous article.

[mpp]

i'm sick of this bullshit

hannity and o'reilly host OPINION programs...too fucking bad if americans are too stupid to realize that those programs have as much news value as The Daily Show

it's called natural selection, deal w/ it