Guest Post by Morbo
I was pleased to read the Carpetbagger’s post about Sen. Barack Obama’s decision to stop talking to personnel from the Fox News Channel. It’s a welcome move, given that channel’s absurd and inaccurate “reporting” over the phony madrassa story.
Now it’s time to take another step: Exclude these phony “reporters” from the campaign trail.
Candidates running for president often jet all over the country in private airplanes. Not every candidate can afford to rent a jet, but most of the serious ones do get access to aircraft eventually.
Press access to the plane is not guaranteed. The candidates are free to exclude anyone for any reason. I’d like to see representatives from the Fox Channel removed from every plane used by a Democratic presidential candidate this year and next.
It’s obvious these guys and gals aren’t interested in doing any real reporting. Giving them access is like credentialing interns from GOPAC. What’s the point?
People who work at the Fox Channel, like those who labor at “Human Events,” “The National Review” and assorted right-wing blogs, are experts at particular forms of partisan attacks that, while they may be written down or broadcast over the airwaves, do not qualify as legitimate journalism.
One is the old “run-any-nasty-rumor-no-matter-how- thin-and-let-candidate-X-deny-it” stunt. It does not matter if the story is bogus. Candidate X’s constant denials then become the story. The hope is that the average person will come to believe the claim. After all, there must be something to it since Candidate X spends so much time denying it. (Swiftboats, anyone?)
Another right-wing standby is “damned if you, damned if you don’t.” I notice it a lot on the Fox Channel. To illustrate how it works, let me provide two examples:
1. Right-wingers claim Hillary Clinton is cold, stiff and too masculine. Clinton responds by emphasizing her softer, more feminine side. Right wingers then attack Clinton as not tough enough to be president.
2. Right-wingers attack the Democrats as anti-faith and “godless.” Democrats respond by talking about religion and recruiting candidates with ties to houses of worship. Right-wingers then attack the Democrats for exploiting religion for political purposes.
These are old rhetorical stunts — not journalism.
Finally, I would urge all of us to remember that language is important. (Why do you think Bush constantly says “Democrat Party“? It’s not just because he’s sub-literate.) Terminology is important. You might have noticed that throughout most of this post, I used the term “Fox Channel,” and I refrained from calling the people who work there “journalists” or “reporters.”
I urge you to do the same. American journalism may be in a rather poor state right now (at least the wing represented by the mainstream media), but, as someone who took a journalism degree 22 years ago, I still respect the profession and harbor hopes for its resurrection. It can be an honorable calling. The terms “journalist” and “reporter” are too important to be pinned on hacks who work at the Fox propaganda mill.