Campaign Desk

Dems Shun Fox News

The great debate

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

In an age where charges of “bias” flow fast and furious at any reporter or news outlet that doesn’t cover things precisely as a legion of critics thinks is fair, the issue of Fox News’ conservative tilt looms large. Portfolio’s Jeff Bercovici opened a can of worms yesterday by examining the argument, put forward by Fox News’ Chris Wallace, that Democratic presidential candidates refuse to appear on Fox in order to appease the far-left segment of the party’s base.

Bercovici agrees with Wallace, to a point. He says that Democrats don’t go on Fox because “they’re afraid of getting tripped up, caught in a flip-flop or a contradiction.”

But so what? Fox may have a point of view, but it doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it represents tens of millions of Americans. As I’ve said before, I don’t buy the argument that CNN and MSNBC are the ideological mirror-image of Fox, but certainly Chris Matthews and Dan Abrams have obvious biases that they don’t do much to disguise.

Fair enough, and he wraps up by saying that while Democrats will undoubtedly field loaded questions from Fox hosts, they should go on the network anyway, because ignoring a large segment of the American public is worse than being caught in a no-win situation.

Zack Roth over at the New York Observer takes issue with this:

Trying to play nice with Fox, Democrats have concluded, is like trying to play nice with Rush Limbaugh—it’s a game they believe they’re never going to win. Instead, they’ve decided to launch a challenge to Fox’s credibility. To me, that seems like smart long-range politics.

This is a tough one. Both Roth and Bercovici make good points, but in the end I have to go with Bercovici on this one, with a caveat or two. Ignoring Fox’s audience certainly doesn’t contain any net positives for Democratic candidates, and it makes them look petty and unsure of their own positions if they’re unwilling to face the heat from Fox’s partisans. That said, for a Democratic candidate to go on Hannity & Colmes or O’Reilly (even though I think O’Reilly would be much fairer than Hannity) would serve little purpose, as shows like this are pure entertainment—red meat for the true believers. It would be like Giuliani going on Air America—except that Hannity actually has an audience.

CJR

If you enjoy this kind of press criticism please consider a subscription to our magazine, Columbia Journalism Review—a deal via the Web site at $19.95.

To subscribe, to give CJR as a gift, to renew, or to check student and CJR in the Classroom rates, click here.

Comments

monicalee

Fri 14 Dec 2007 12:21 PM

I have to agree with Zack Roth. The Fox commentators have set themselves up as entertainers, and their audience wants nothing more than to be entertained by watching Dems being thrown to the lions. Why would any Dem go into that arena, knowing their chances of getting their point across would be slim to none?

It is a matter of credibility, too. If the Democratic candidates started courting--or even gave into--the Fox people, it would suggest that they felt they needed them. They don't.

No hard-core Fox viewer is going to slide over to the Dem's side based on an interview-cum-catfight (because surely it would turn into that), and everybody involved knows that.

The only possible reason Fox would invite the Dem candidates is to entertain their viewers with some hoped-for juicy soundbites. A colossal waste of time as far as the Dems are concerned. Why is that so hard to understand?

RonR

Fri 14 Dec 2007 04:50 PM

Imagining that Fox will have any relevance in the coming election is a towering act of creativity. Despite the smug tag about Hannity and Air America (are we supposed to be disheartened by the number of knee-jerk conservatives vs. the number of knee-jerk liberals?), Fox has pandered to the same sad audience that clings so slavishly to Limbaugh, Coulter, and Savage, and now it can attract no one else. Fox is to a news organization as Hannity (or O'Reilly) is to Ed Murrow: not really in the same category at all.

monicalee

Fri 14 Dec 2007 05:40 PM

Hannity, O'Reilly and Murrow in the same sentence. What a hoot!

TDC

Tue 18 Dec 2007 01:10 PM

Aboslutely! After all, the idea of Democrats going onto Fox news for an ambush debate is about as fair as a Republican debate being moderated by a former chief aid for a democratic speaker of the house … oh wait.

padikiller

Fri 28 Dec 2007 09:05 AM

Paul McLeary posits an "issue"

the issue of Fox News’ conservative tilt looms large...

padikiller keeps the Reality Train on the rails

The only problem with Mr. McLeary's "issue" is that it is apparently a NON-ISSUE.... Another fabricated moonbat myth presented as fact by a "watchdog" of "professional journalism"..

"TV election news has been hardest on Hillary Clinton this fall, while Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have been the biggest media favorites, according to a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University. The study also found that Fox NewsChannel’s evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the broadcast networks."

No wonder the Dems "shun" Fox... Reality doesn't play well in McLearyland...

That's the "issue" here, people...

AhmNee

Fri 28 Dec 2007 03:39 PM

Wow. Faux News must be ... as their tagline says ... fair and balanced. After all the CMPA says they are. Of course ... the CMPA is funded overwhelmingly by conservative donations. Why would they not be telling the truth?

padikiller

Sat 29 Dec 2007 08:50 PM

LOL...

Moonbats just assume that a conservative organization cannot be trusted to "tell the truth".

You won't find any susbstantial refutation of the results of the CMPA study- just silly, unfounded claims of bias...

Of course, everything the Project for Excellence in Journalism (a Columbia University think tank whose benefactor, the Pew Charitable Trusts, that has been taken over by a hyper-leftist, Rebecca Rimelin) reports is taken as gospel truth in McLearyland..

AhmNee

Wed 2 Jan 2008 09:42 AM

It's just a silly study. Percent of postitive and negative stories without any real view of content. And by that study the other networks are harder on both Dems and GOP candidates, even if they are much harder on GOP candidates as the study suggests.

I'm just surprised they can find time between reporting sensationalist stories from satire rags like the onion like they're a real story.