Left Chided Over FOX Fear
Barack Obama has proudly proclaimed that he will meet with any dictator in the world, no matter how tyranical they are. Yet this same Obama REFUSES to appear on FOX News. Does anybody else see the irony in this? Obama is following in the footsteps of John Edwards who was the first of the Democrat presidential aspirants to publicly announce his refusal to appear on any debate sponsored by FOX News. Both Edwards and Obama are publicly pandering to the attempt by the Left to boycott FOX news by insisting that no Democrat ever appear on FOX in order to deny it any semblance of legitimacy. This attitude has caused HUffington Post blogger, John Ridley to CHIDE his fellow liberals for refusing to appear on FOX News in his inaccurately titled, "The Left Fringe Needs to Quit Being Scared of the Fox." I say his title is inaccurate because it is the MAINSTREAM Left that is refusing to appear on FOX. Left Fringe types like Dennis Kucinich, to his credit, often appears on that network. Ridley, for the sake of accuracy should retitle his article, "The Pandering Left Needs to Quit Being Scared of Fox." Yes, it is the Democrat panderers such as Edwards, Obama, etc. who are shunning FOX. As we shall see, however, Ridley's advice seems to be falling on deaf ears since many of the HUffington Post HUffies continue to DEMAND that Democrats shun FOX. So let us now watch the HUffies react angrily to Ridley's advice in Bolshevike Red, while the commentary of your humble correspondent, rewarding the sage advice of the generally liberal Ridley with a plug for his recently released comic novel called "The American Way," is in the [brackets]:
The Left Fringe Needs to Quit Being Scared of the Fox
[Sorry, John, but it is the PANDERING Left such as John Edwards and Barack Obama who are scared of appearing on FOX News. And they are not really scared of FOX News. It is alienating their looney left base that they fear.]
So I was going through my favorite news, information, pop culture websites this past weekend when I came across an interesting post. It was put up by your typical anonymous responder #54 (okay, truth be told he was the first responder on the thread, but I'm pretty sure Guido was not the cat's true name) who blasted Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis) for appearing on Fox News Sunday as being "this week's FOX Democrat. Shame on him."
[GASP! FOX News gave Feingold a forum? But I thought it was just a rightwing propaganda channel as is so loudly proclaimed by the Looney Left.]
...I saw Feingold on FNS. He acquitted himself excellently.
[GASP! You mean they didn't shout Feingold down or treat him unfairly?]
Chris Wallace asked questions that could be considered only somewhat vast rightwing conspiracy slanted, if at all. But there was certainly nothing from so far left...well, right field that Feingold couldn't handle it. Why, then, "shame on him" for NOT being afraid to take it to the "other guy's" house and state his case? For me the shame oughta be on guys like Guido; the left leaners who want to flay Democrats for having the meat to stand in the Foxlight.
[The shame should not only be on Guido but also on Edwards and Obama for pandering to guys like Guido.]
Obviously, Fox News makes its bank in extreme opinion. I've already registered my disgust with John Gibson who is NOT a racist. He's just an old white guy who thinks white people oughta maintain their white dominance by having lots of white babies.
[Sorry, John, I just can't let that one slip by. You claim Gibson is NOT a racist but then slyly attribute to him racist opinions. Okay, now back to your generally right on commentary...]
But does Fox opine any less than Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews over at MSNBC (another disclosure, I co host Morning Joe on the network, though I hope by now that's not actually a disclosure for anyone anymore)?
[Olbermann never has on anybody with an opinion opposing him. Meanwhile O'Reilly and Hannity do interview on a nightly basis guests with contrary opinions.]
The far left fringe feasting on their own is, of course, hardly a new phenomenon. There are nearly half a dozen pejoratives reserved for any liberal who would dare to be a guest of "the enemy." Quite ironic when you consider that House Speaker Nancy had no fear of slapping on a do-rag and having a siddown with actual "enemy" Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (as have Republicans), and in light of the current Obama/Clinton dust up over Obama's remarks that he would go "toe to toe with the leaders of rogue nations."
[The same Obama who would go "toe to toe with the leaders of rogue nations" refuses to appear on what he considers to be a "rogue network."]
And why not? if Nixon could stare down China, if Reagan could do the same to the Soviets, why should the Dems cower before aggressors?
[Great point which will get you accused of being a Vast Rightwing Conspirator.]
And why should elements of the far left slam Dems who have no fear of li'l ole Fox News?
They should not.
And yet they do, and do so to the detriment of their own party. For the Dems to participate in the circus-like YouTube debate, only to run from the Fox News/Congressional Black Caucus debate is seriously weak. More so when you consider the exodus was largely driven by far left leaning websites.
[I was disappointed that they didn't allow the Groucho Marx puppet or the talking frog to ask questions so I had to settle for the snowman.]
If the far left wanna monitor and watch and hound the Fox, please by all means. Though I wish they would do the same for the New York Times, which has bumbled through substantially more scandalous reporting in the last ten years.
[Except for the Jayson Blair articles. His reporting was spot on.]
But for Pete's sake, leave fearless Wisconsinites like Feingold alone. Dems like him are at least trying to dig up the mantle of tough guys (and gals) the party misplaced somewhere between the eras of Humphrey and Carter.
They should not allow the "cry on their Sunday dress" bunch to trip 'em up.
[And now to hear from the "cry on their Sunday dress" bunch on the HUffington Post...]
There is no "balance or fairness" over there, why give them a platform to blast the Dems some more? That would be idiotic. At times you just have to fight fire with fire.
[Apparently Ridley's article went in one ear, through your empty head, and out the other ear.]
I just have to add, it's not left fringe; It's left MAINSTREAM!
[Correct. The left MAINSTREAM have become the loonies.]
Please would you stop calling those who object to the Fox propaganda machine the "fringe left." That's denigrating.
[Call it "MAINSTREAM Left. That's accurate.]
We object to appearances on Fox because it is not a news outlet. It is an entertainment and propaganda outlet, where hosts make fun of their guests, ask trick questions to trap their guests ('did you stop beating your wife?'), and they are not interested in dialog or discussion of any important issues facing our country.
[What "trick questions" were asked of Russ Feingold?]
Fox News has demonstrated its willingness to lie and distort in its editing. It is a propaganda organization and should not be treated with the respect due to a news operation.
[Unlike the "fair and balanced" Keith Olbermann who will be moderating an upcoming Democrat debate.]
Fox has made every effort to demonize all liberals, progressives and Democrats and I cannot think of any reason to do them the favor of appearing on their network. In particular, a media event like a Democrat Debate.
[Obama indicated that he was in favor of meeting with Li'l Kim of North Korea but God forbid he ever appear on FOX News.]
I don't think that the Democrats are "afraid" of Fox at all. I think that Democrats are making the point that Fox is not a legitimate venue for political dialogue. I think they are making the point that Fox has been and remains a propaganda machine for the Republican party. They have no desire whatsoever to legitimize Fox's partisan propaganda. Nor should they.
[Posted one upon whom John Edwards panders to.]
It is when Democrats go on Fox, can't keep up, get the poo beat out of themselves and make all Democrats look bad that we object to. In the end they are just drown out by republicans who have practice sessions in speed talking and never running out of a talking point. And finally they end up either seeming to be crowed or agreeing with the motor mouth nutcase.
[Challenging questions redefined as practice sessions speed talking.]
FNC is a right-wing/Republican propaganda outlet. The people who watch it will not be influenced by Dems, so why appear and lend them credibility? The ones that can be influenced are also watching other channels. No need to feed the big, bad fox.
[No need to speak to anybody outside of our own self-agreeing circle.]
Fox is out-of-bounds because, too frequently, their game is rigged. It's not that their questions are too tough, it's that their shows are traps - misleading format (e.g. fake liberals like Colmes), rude interviewers who intentionally utter misleading questions (when did you stop beating your wife?), selective editing (broadcasting the yawn instead of the pithy policy pitch.) Even more invidiously, Fox justifies its viewers' faith through the use of "random reinforcement" of perceived honesty by their infrequent self-deprecation and snippets of truth that provide an aura of objectivity.
[Boo Hoo! We can talk to rogue dictators but we just can't handle FOX News questions.]
It's a far stretch to compare Fox to Olberman, who, while selective and opinionated, isn't unfair. Just say no.
[Olbermann isn't unfair? And when was the last time you actually saw a guest on his show who had an opinion opposing him?]
I am neither a Fox viewer nor an apologist, but if a Democratic candidate gets a slanted question from a Fox panelist and can't call it out for what it is before responding to the question then maybe they aren't worth voting for. However, I don't think any of the Dem candidates would have any problem handling Hume or whoever the moderator might be.
[And this HUffie WINS a Kewpie Doll for having a brief moment of mental clarity!]
I really think that the Dems are just digging themselves in a hole with this and they feel entitled to slam all things Fox, when in actuallity it simply makes them look like whiney, cry babies.
[Sorry. Only one Kewpie Doll awarded per HUffie thread.]
Appearing on Fux News helps promote the "fair and balanced" myth. 70-30 is not balanced.
[In that case there will have to be mass firings on ABC, NBC, and CBS to make it a balanced 50-50.]
HOWEVER, most democrats are easily manipulated by Fox Noise. AND I still believe a democrat showing up on Fox Noise only legitimizes a company that is not news but rather a propaganda site for the rightwing of the GOP.
[If democrats are so easily "manipulated" that sure doesn't say much for their mental abilities.]
I gotta say I hate giving them any shred of dignity as a legitimate "news channel." That's the issue, credibility.
[As opposed to the "credible" Katie Couric who got caught with a ghost-written, plagiarized blog.]
This is not about being afraid to face them on their own turf. This is about allowing them to profit from the appearances of Democrats on their territory, and then using the profits to attack Democrats.
[Don't worry. FOX News is already KILLING CNN in the ratings.]
The left is caught complaining about being trapped inside the choir. Yet, when they are given the opportunity to communicate outside the loop and directly to an audience they could only dream about reaching, they fade like a bad smell in the wind.
[A bad smell of the flatulent kind.]
People need to hear progressive voices over the punditry. The only way I know how to do that is to de-legitimize those who make the most noise: Fox.
[TRANSLATION: People must not be allowed to listen to contrary points of view. Only "progressive" voices can be legitimatized.]
Except the FOX News debate boycott isn't about standing up to FOX, it's about de-legitimatizing them as a news organization.
[Thanx for that public admission that the leftwing FOX News boycott is all about vengeance since the Left wants that network purged from the airwaves.]
The democratic members of congress should refuse to even appear on Fox "News" and should clearly state why. They are not a news outlet, they are a propaganda and misinformation tool, owned and operated by the republican party.
[You need to get some advice from Hugo Chavez on how to remove FOX News from the airwaves.]
No Dem should go on FOX News. It should be boycotted an loudly. Time to draw a line in the sand. FOX is not news- it's vapid debate between sheltered and ignorant people.
[I'm looking forward to the general election when FOX News sponsors a debate and the Democrat candidate doesn't show up.]
Okay here's the thing: FAUX is not a legimate news source. Appearing on FAUX helps lends crediblity to thier crap. If you appear on FAUX it seems you do NOT understand they are not liegimate either. So Democrats appear on FAUX at thier own peril, it damages thier credibilty.
[TRANSLATION: Democrats beware. You better continue pandering to us or suffer the consequences. BTW, THANK YOU John Edwards.]
Mr. Ridley, maybe you should stop calling the Daily Kos community the far left.
[Or we will send Guido to have a "little talk" with you.]
FOX has lost its credibility. It is the worst, and its "news" department deserves to die a corporate death or reform itself.
[By becoming as predictably liberal and boring as the other networks.]
Screw FOX. We don't need them and the general American public has already figured out their schtick is a joke.
[So why the soaring FOX ratings?]
FOX isn't being boycotted because anyone is afraid of them. They are being boycotted because they a propaganda machine. When you go on FOX you are not interviewed, you are set up. If you win the debate, they cut off your microphone or pit three or four shouters against you. Shutting them out is not only appropriate, it's necessary until they can be regulated or shut down.
[Have you ever watched "The View?"]
Fox should be invisible now and forever.
[Is that you, Hugo Chavez?]
Ridley misses the point...going on Fox is an admission that they somehow matter.
[Highest news ratings on cable don't matter?]
PS the NY Times is nothing like Fox, so quit pretending they are remotely alike. The Times is a journalistic effort, with its pluses and minuses; FOX is a nonstop, lowdown Republican noise machine, and sloppy, to boot.
[So is Jayson Blair now a FOX News reporter?]
In the Holocaust days of WW 2, would it be advisable for oppressed Jews to meet with fascist propagandists when to do so would give them legitimacy?
[WOW! Talk about demonization! So now you are equating FOX News with the Nazis.]
The real point is, the PNAC crowd, as they plainly state, want nothing less than to dominate the world through fear and intimidation. And they don’t speak in metaphor.
[Such as staring silently at a camera for a few minutes and then tossing a large rock into a pond.]
We would not go to The John Birch Society or The American Nazi Party newsletter either. It's not folly or "leftism" that keeps people off of Fox. It's wisdom.
[I copied & pasted this in case anyone doubts that the comparison of FOX News with the Nazis is just an isolated Leftwing opinion.]
Any progressive who goes on Fux is like the puppies Michael Vick throws to the Pit Bulls. They will make no impression on the mindless crowd that forms Fux's audience.
[Innocent Democrat puppies tossed to the growling FOX News pit bulls.]
I totally agree with this commentary. When it first came out that people were boycotting, I was glad because fox news is a right-wing machine. But, I proceeded to think about it. A lot of people watch fox news and it is a debate. This is an opportunity to sway viewers regardless of orientation. And boycotting a debate is bad because those voters could be the difference between you winning and losing Ohio, for example. Also, boycotting this debate just gives ammunition to the right who doesn't need anything more to get the left on.
[It also makes for a great DUFU edition on the theme of how narrow-minded the Left is in their own words.]