Its Not About Free Speech, Its About The Truth
There has been some blog chatter about the wisdom behind the state Democratic Party’s decision to cancel the Fox News debate, and while I understand some of the frustration, the chatter continues to repeat some illogical arguments as justification for holding the debate.
1. Fox News will allow Democrats more access to Republican and Independent voters.
Using the results of a Pew Research Center study, Chris Bowers has shown that this is a bogus argument. If anything, network news channels would be the way to go for ratings among Republican and Independent viewers, not to mention that other outlets like CNN and NPR each have more viewers among Republicans and Independents than Fox News. To argue that Democrats would reach more Republican and Independent voters on Fox News is just wrong.
2. Fox News may be biased but so are CNN and MSNBC.
Okay, maybe so–that’s something we can debate for the next 100 years. But its a staw man. The problem isn’t that Fox News is biased, the problem is that Fox News often shapes the news in a dishonest way. They attack presidential candidates by using shoddily researched or even dubious news stories, they run bogus headline banners, they have played key roles in popularizing pundits who traffic in hate speech, pioneered the movement of cable news programs emphasizing entertainment over news by creating shows like The O’Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes where personalities trump responsible journalism–well journalism at all. Now I certainly don’t blame anyone, let alone Fox news for trying to make money, but isn’t it just another aspect of our capitalist economy for people who find a product misrepresented or false to stop purchasing it? This isn’t about free speech or first amendment rights, its about a news channel that’s first priority is not the news, Its about false advertising–simple as that. Fox News is a paid service–you are purchasing a product just like any other, and you can stop purchasing it or using it just like you would any other defective product. If we want better news, then we have to start holding those producing a shoddy product accountable. There’s nothing more American.
3. The party will suffer.
I attended the Truckee Meadows Democratic Alliance’s and the Washoe County Democratic Party’s 4th Annual Crab Feed this Saturday and Chair Chris Wicker led the attendees in a little cheer for the victory over Fox News, so although there may be some initial embarrassment and even anger, I am convinced that our internal debates will result in a better organized and focused organization–an organization that can run a successful caucus and bring Nevada the kind of attention it deserves. I for one am proud our state party was the first organization in the nation to make such a statement, and I hope it isn’t the last. We all deserve a better news product and its up to us, the consumers, to tell the manufacturers of bogus news that we won’t accept less than the best.
Similar Posts:
- Crowdsourcing: Getting The Milk For Free
- More Debate Scheduling Conflicts: Are Republican Candidates Afraid of American Minorities?
- Local News Anchor Joe Hart Gets It Wrong (Already!)
Enjoy this post? Leave a comment below or subscribe to my feed. You also can sign up for email delivery by clicking here.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
[...] I know you thought you might not see anything about the canceled Fox News debate–you’d be wrong. Bogus arguments against why Democrats shouldn’t have canceled it are continuing, so let’s look a few others circulating out there. If you missed the first post on bogus arguments for not canceling the debate, you can read them here. [...]
[...] I’ve been thinking about the continuing debate surrounding NSDP’s cancellation of the Fox News Democratic presidential debate and encountered a couple of great posts on the subject. First, from the LA Times’ Ronald Brownstein: Fox cloaks itself in the mantle of objectivity with the nudge-nudge insistence that it—and it alone—provides “fair and balanced” coverage of the news. Then it advances its financial and ideological interests by promoting lurid accusations from conservatives against Democrats, accusations that are routinely debunked later by the mainstream media. Many Fox reporters are fair. But overall the network—through its language, its news decisions and its hosts—generally functions more like a cog in the Republican message machine than as a conventional news organization that attempts to abide, however imperfectly, by the traditional standards of (yes) fairness and balance. [...]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Excellent analysis! Hopefully, we will also make this kind of mistake in the future, because we won’t just let it pass - we’ll take corrective action and limit the power of the NSDP Chair by requiring them to, at the very least, set up a regular telephone conference with our Executive Board and INCLUDE our representatives in the decision making process!
Actually, though there is egg on the face of a few, the vast majority of Nevada Democrats are being hailed - and this could go from being a good thing to a really great thing for all of us in the eyes of the nation!
I agree about the quality of the analysis, however, I would like to add my two cents about one thing. Cancelling the debate tends to send the message that politicians (and other folks) should only, or only need to, talk to “news” organizations they like or agree with. I can tell you, from the inside, politicians often don’t like journalists who do “real” news. They claim bias about anything they disagree with and then rationalize that as their reason for not talking. Yeah, Fox is the extreme, but I, as a consumer, always know Fox’s agenda. I always know how to interpret what goes on there. It’s the fake-objective, agenda-only-apparent-with-constant-vigilance “news” that’s difficult to interpret. Why doesn’t anyone ever ask why the networks were so gung-ho on going to war in Iraq? If their agenda were obvious, maybe people would have questioned the reporting that was going on.
So, at any rate, when Myrna calls a politician to talk about something, as she sometimes does, does she really want to hear as a reply, “Oh, you’re too liberal, I don’t trust that my words or actions aree safe in your hands,” or “You’re a blog, blog writers have agendas,” or even, “what’s a blog, and what’s your real name?” People who are running for office, looking to live on the taxpayer dime, need to be responsive to anyone who pays taxes.
One final aspect to this is when people saw how Fox treated their favored candidate (whom they may know certain facts about and would recognize lies) they may have gotten a differnt impression of Fox. And if those people were powerful advertisers on Fox, it may have forced change in the way Fox does “news.”
But that’s a bunch of maybes.
Brian
Hmm, okay, I can give you that. But if you’re a good journalist, you can get the story and get someone to talk to you that doesn’t want to. I actually think that the whole news as objective thing is another strawman. Its a journalist’s job to be fair, not necessarily objective–as if they ever could be. People are people and organizations are organizations. I think if a news outlet and a journalist develop a reputation as fair, that is what gets them the good interview or the good story. Sure, if they know you are friendly toward their agenda that helps to, but no one should be shooting for that low bar.
And I totally agree about your conclusion as far as almost all mainstream media failing in their mission of being an advocate for the people in the run up to the war. Now that things aren’t going well, its easier for them to be critical but where were they when we needed them? You really had to seek out alternative information. A real shame. Again, to plug PBS’s Frontline series Newswar, it takes a pretty good look at that and has a great discussion about the changing nature of what constitutes news, how politicians and administrations wield power against news organizations, etc. Excellent.
Brian, that was a great look at how it works. It’s good to get someone who’s actually an everyday journalist to chime in on how the people you’re reporting on and trying to talk to react to you.
Myrna, I would disagree with you on fair outlets being able to “get the good interview.” Even the most fair are viewed skeptically by politicians because of some perception of bias. So they might avoid those outlets. That is why I think the Dems and Fox were a decent match. It was going to bridge the gap that is definitely there now. Imagine this, too. What if Fox had used the debate to completely blast Dems all the way to the election. Wouldn’t that have been a kind of final straw in the debate over whether they ar legitimate? So I think they wouldn’t have done that.
If I recall, you started out thinking similarly to me. What changed your mind?