To update a post from a few weeks ago, Democratic presidential candidates and the Nevada state party continue to face questions about partnering with Fox News to host one of the season’s major Democratic presidential debates in Reno, scheduled for August 14. [tag]John Edwards[/tag] was the first to announce that he would not participate in the event.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who had expressed support for the event, seems to be coming around. Reid stated plainly yesterday, “I don’t like Fox News,” and reiterated several times that the Nevada Democratic Party is independent — Reid is not involved with its decision making.
[tag]Fox News[/tag] Channel chairman [tag]Roger Ailes[/tag] spoke to the Radio & TV News Director’s Foundation last night, and after a series of questionable conservative jokes, subtly addressed the subject of the Nevada controversy.
“We’re headed into covering a tough political season and all of us will be called upon to do our best and be fair. Recently pressure groups are forcing candidates to conclude that the best strategy for journalists is divide and conquer, to only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage.
“There’s a long tradition of news organizations, national and local, sometimes together, sponsoring presidential and other candidate debates. The organizations and the panelists have been the objects of a lot of advice and even pressure as to how these debates should be conducted and what questions should be asked. This pressure has been successfully resisted, but it’s being tried again this year with the added wrinkle that candidates are being asked to boycott debates because certain groups wants to approve the sponsoring organizations. This pressure must be resisted as it has been in the past. Any candidate for high office of either party who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake about journalists. And any candidate of either party who cannot answer direct, simple, even tough questions from any journalist runs a real risk of losing the voters.
“The public knows if a journalist’s question is unfair. They also know if a candidate is impeding freedom of speech and free press. If you are afraid of journalists, how will you face the real dangers in the world?”
There’s a lot of inanity here, so let’s take a moment to unpack all of this.
Ailes said, for example, that he believes all media professionals “will be called upon to do our best and be fair.” I didn’t see Ailes deliver the remarks, but if he managed to characterize Fox News’ coverage of anything as “fair,” without giggling, I’d be very impressed.
His argument that “pressure groups” (i.e., voters) want candidates to “only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage,” is particularly nonsensical. If Dems limited media interviews to sympathetic outlets, they’d appear nowhere but Air America every day. The controversy about the Nevada debate has nothing to do with limiting exposure to left-leaning outlets and everything to do with legitimizing an admittedly, unabashedly Republican outlet.
Ailes went on to argue that “candidates are being asked to boycott debates because certain groups want to approve the sponsoring organizations.” That’s not quite right, either. Dems don’t want veto power over all sponsoring organizations, they just want to see explicitly Republican organizations excluded.
This sounded almost compelling: “Any candidate for high office of either party who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake about journalists.” And if Fox News practiced journalism and hired journalists, I might be more inclined to take the point seriously.
Ailes is right, however, that candidates should obviously be able to “answer direct, simple, even tough questions,” but that’s irrelevant here. The question is whether a Republican news channel should sponsor a Democratic debate. There will be plenty of time for candidates to address journalists’ questions from legitimate news outlets. No one is suggesting that Dem presidential hopefuls duck anything.
As for the notion that candidates might “impede freedom of speech and free press,” I suspect Ailes might be referring to both Edwards and Obama — Edwards for announcing he won’t participate in the Nevada debate and Obama for limiting access to Fox News “correspondents.” In either case, the argument is just silly. For a candidate to snub partisans from the other side of the aisle — partisans who smear the candidate at every available opportunity — isn’t a First Amendment violation; it’s an example of common sense.
Ailes seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. He’s created a Republican network that attracts a Republican audience, and he also believes he’s entitled to credibility as a “newsman.” Ailes should probably stop whining and make a decision: credibility or partisanship? He can’t have both.