Dems, Fox News, and a presidential debate — Part II

Here we go again?

In 2003, for reasons that have never been entirely clear, the Congressional Black Caucus co-sponsored a Democratic presidential debate with Fox News. It didn’t go well — the questions were slanted, the in-studio analysis was ridiculous, and the coverage of the event itself on Fox News was cut short so conservative talking heads could start criticizing the candidates before the debate was even over. Indeed, the ’03 event was used by activists recently as an example of why the Nevada Democratic Party shouldn’t team up with FNC for another presidential debate in August.

With this background in mind, it came as a bit of a surprise when we learned that the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute was poised to announce two upcoming presidential debates to be held in concert with Fox News

Just as with Nevada, activists quickly got to work. Kos immediately implored the CBC Institute to reject Fox News, and just as importantly, Color of Change, an African-American online activist group, launched a campaign to convince the CBC Institute to pick a different network.

“Fox News is not a ‘fair and balanced’ source of information or political debate, and it has repeatedly proven itself hostile to the interests of Black Americans,” says a letter online activists can sign on the group’s website. “Fox on-air personalities and regular guests consistently marginalize Black leaders, culture, and institutions.”

To help prove its case, Color of Change asked Outfoxed director Robert Greenwald to compile an online video detailing Fox News’ record of attacking the African-American community — and Greenwald put together a rather devastating montage.

Would there be another candidate boycott? Would the CBC Institute fight a public skirmish with the netroots? Apparently, none of that will be necessary — today, the Congressional Black Caucus signed a deal with CNN.

As Nico noted, “The efforts appear to have paid off.” Here’s a CNN statement released today:

CNN will partner with the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute (CBC Institute) to host a presidential debate among Democratic candidates in South Carolina on Jan. 24, 2008.

Anchor Wolf Blitzer will moderate the Democratic debate. CNN correspondent Joe Johns and White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux will serve as panelists to question candidates participating in the debate.

“CNN is pleased to join with the CBC Institute in spotlighting this important primary race,” said Jon Klein, president of CNN/U.S. “This debate provides a meaningful addition to our comprehensive coverage of the 2008 presidential election, particularly as it gives us an opportunity to explore more closely a range of issues that will impact the pivotal African-American vote.”

“Our goal with the debate is to provide a platform that will allow voters to hear the positions of candidates, from both political parties, on the critical issues facing our nation,” said CBC Institute Board Chairman and U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) “Every voter deserves an opportunity to evaluate the candidates. Collaborating with CNN provides unprecedented viewership and allows us to take the 2008 presidential election to homes across America.”

Now, to be fair, it’s hard to say for certain that pressure from activists (online and off) pushed the CBC Institute to make the right call here. Unlike the Nevada Dems, the Caucus had never actually struck a deal with Fox News; it was all in the negotiation phase.

That said, pressure from activists couldn’t have hurt, right?

Will Fox News now use this as an opportunity to slam the left? Considering that was part of the programming plan anyway, will anyone be able to tell the difference?

Update: I may have spoken too soon — the CBC has agreed to work with CNN on one event, but may partner with Fox News on another. In other words, it’s still important to keep the pressure on.

Good news! Maybe CNN will have learned a positive lesson. Fox is beyond schooling. Camille Paglia called Dem cowards for cancelling the Fox sponsorship of the Nevada debates in Salon magazine. Her welcome back to the magazine wasn’t very welcoming at all since she spouted so many rightwing talking points she sounded like Coulter

  • “Will Fox News now use this as an opportunity to slam the left? Considering that was part of the programming plan anyway, will anyone be able to tell the difference?”

    Will anyone care ??

    If a Fox ‘News’ commentator slurs a democrat and has no viewers, does anyone really give a damn ?

    That is the point, right, to demoralize Fox ‘News’ to the point where no average person can actually claim it’s news.

    Nice job all around.

  • Possible FUX responses in order of likelyhood:

    1. Doesn’t say anything but starts running a number of stories that suggest all the brown folks are out to kill/assault/rob/sell drugs to all the non-brown folks.

    2. The CBC is too stupid to know better:
    a. Pity the poor deluded brown folks who have been tricked by the librul MSM.
    b. Pity the poor deluded brown folks who have been tricked by the Democrats.

    3. The CBC is sooo ungrateful:
    a. The ReThuglican party has always been nice to the brown folks.

    4. Radical/Thug rumors culled from Insight Mag:
    a. The CBC is filled with [scary group of your choice].
    b. One of its X number of members was once arrested on drug charges.

    5. Someone drops the N-bomb. And then claims it was a joke.

  • Yes, hooray. Time to call ’em out on their propaganda. Next step is to please stop referring to them as Fox “News”, they are not a “news” agency, unless you want to call them Faux News but really it’s Fox Commentary, or Fox Opinion, but “news” they certainly are not. No matter how much they spin that ‘fair and balanced’ routine they wouldn’t have gotten this much notoriety had they even been half-way fair and balanced. They are bigots, with an agenda that is so biased, opinionated and hate filled that they have become totally unreliable as any kind of “News” source, and should no longer be included with news agencies to report on todays happenings.

  • It’s great to see what a solid and high sided box Focks has built for itself.

    And there seems to be an increasing willingness to see Focks flat out bullying and misrepresentation as the reality behind the wavy mirror of “fair and balanced”.

    If this dismissive pushback can be maintained and built on, it will shock Focks. Like ShrubCo, they have no Plan B.

  • Like I said before, nobody really *needs* Fox News for actual news and if it disappeared tomorrow people would just switch to CNN and the other networks. Now that lightning has struck twice they must be really starting to worry. I hope.

    I wonder if that’s why so many Wrong Wingers are being planted in CNN these days? Maybe they read the writing on the wall and wanted a place to settle before Fox News goes belly-up completely?

  • I like Olbermann’s Fox Noise, though I think Republican Propaganda Channel is the most accurate.

  • The economic consequences of the fledgling boycott of Faux may be having some impact. I have noticed several semi-apoplectic radical-right talking heads decrying the decision of the Democrats, ominously warning of dire consequences. They’re following their usual plan; whine endlessly, then threaten, then smear, then—it’s heart warming to know they are being hurt.

  • Since I doubt that CBC would have been entirely happy about partnering with Fox Noise, I wonder when it was that CNN expressed interest in featuring the debates. At the time of the CBS’s negotiations with RPC (thank you! Sagacity, @ 8) it might have been a choice betwen no noise and fox noise.

  • I heard someone on a call-in radio show make a good point yesterday…if you want to reach some new ears, doesn’t putting a Democratic debate on Fox News actually make some sense? We know that the Fox audience is overwhelmingly red-staters, so if you want their votes, you should go to them instead of expecting them to come looking for you.

    As for the case against, that a) the questions are unfair and b) the “analysis” is biased against the Dems…

    a) If you (a politician) are afraid of tough questions, or unfair questions, then maybe politics isn’t your game. Like in sports, sometimes you play at home, and sometimes you play on the road, and everyone knows it’s tougher on the road. But if you want to win, you have to figure out a way to overcome those obstacles.

    b) The political analysis is unfair…so what? Fox News (or any other network) can’t make a candidate say something they don’t want to say. Are we afraid that the American sheeple are too stupid to actually listen to what the candidates say, and make up their minds for themselves? Or are we afraid that the candidates’ positions won’t stand up to scrutiny? If you believe what you are doing is right, then you get out there, and give your message to every audience you can.

    To me, saying that you don’t want a Democratic debate on Fox News is a bit like the stories of Bush/Cheney trying to sanitize the audience at their speaking engagements…what are you afraid of?

  • Yes Addison, we’ll do what you say since you sound sooooo reasonable. Riiiiight.

    There are no Democratic votes to be had by having a CBC-sponsored debate on Faux Spews; even if a comment hit home with the audience the post-debate “commentary” would be sure to twist all those changed minds back into place so that the sheep can be keep in the pens, where Faux wants them to stay.

    I agree that we should call it Faux Commentary, Faux Spews, or anything other than Fuax News because news it ain’t. If they would agree to call it Faux Propaganda channel then I would be happy to oblige; truth in advertising and all that.

  • Addison

    As much as conservative Republicans want to reach new voters, you don’t see them looking to sponsor debates on Telemundo, Gay TV or Air America, so why should the Congressional Black Caucus, a liberal organizations with no Republican members, seek out conservative media outlets to hold its debates. The point of having the Congressional Black Caucus hosting debates is to have the candidates face questions specifically about issues and concerns facing African Americans; questions usually not asked when reporters from Fox and the other networks quiz the candidates. Having the debate on a mainstream media channel will insure mainstream media questions, because these days the only reporters allowed on network news debates are reporters affiliated with the network. Why not some debates on BET, CSPAN or MTV? These networks do not have many reporters, which would allow the debate producers to give reporters from the Black Press, as well as Black reporters and columnists from media outlets outside of Washington a chance to ask questions. The MTV debate could feature Black reporters under 30, a demographic being ignored by mainstream political organizers like the CBC.

  • Comments are closed.