Scott Collins has an entertainment column for the LA Times, in which he writes about television. Today, Collins decided to use his TV column to wade into a political debate. (via Too Sense)
It’s become unfashionable in most media circles to stick up in any way for Fox News Channel, so it’s not surprising that the decision by Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama to nix an upcoming Democratic primary debate, a joint production of Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus, has generally been greeted with deafening silence among editorial writers and other professional fulminators.
So it needs to be said: The Democrats are dead wrong not to debate on Fox News. And it’s hypocritical for the supposedly nonpartisan media to stand by and do nothing while a TV network — even one with an obvious rightward tilt whose fairness and balance deserve every bit of the scrutiny they’re getting — is trashed by mega-million-dollar political campaigns in the heat of a White House primary battle. When politicians, one of whom may very well be the next president of the United States, start using their platforms to lob missiles at news-gathering organizations they don’t like, it’s hard to see how that’s much different than President Nixon’s infamous “enemies list.”
Now, I realize it’s probably difficult when an expert in one field tackles a controversy in another field. Michael Jordan, for example, wasn’t much of a baseball player. There’s nothing wrong with someone sticking with what they’re good at. As far as I can tell, Scott Collins is good at writing about television. But if today’s nonsense is any indication, he should probably stick to his subject from now on.
“Enemies list”? Are you kidding? Nixon, paranoid and unbalanced, identified perceived threats and created a secret target list for retribution 35 years ago, using the power of the White House to punish those who got in his way. Democratic presidential candidates don’t want to legitimize a partisan television network by appearing at one of its events. These two are similar, how?
Worse, Collins acknowledges Fox News’ partisanship. His column notes, for example, that the network “has done more than perhaps any other major media outlet to accelerate” a “nasty, polarized” style of public discourse. He notes that FNC has reported blatant falsehoods about Democratic candidates, some of them “toxic.” He mentions upfront the FNC’s “obvious rightward tilt.”
In fact, Collins goes on to note, “[I]t’s not like Rupert Murdoch’s cable news network is the only way for Americans to hear the candidates live and unfiltered. Two Democratic debates have already been held, and between now and Jan. 31 at least nine more are scheduled, not including the two Fox News events, with sponsors including CNN, ABC News and the Los Angeles Times.”
So, what’s the argument? Collins concluded that it would set a “horrible precedent” to allow presidential candidates to “pillory major news organizations as propaganda machines.”
But what if the news organization is a propaganda machine?
Please, Mr. Collins, stick to television reporting.