Sunday, March 11, 2007

Review-Journal better be careful

The Las Vegas Review-Journal better be careful, or it too will find itself on the black list of covering the Democratic Presidential Primary. Their editorial hits the nail on the head:

You'd think the deal called for having Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter mock the candidates between comments. No, even unfiltered, unedited, live debate between loyal Democrats couldn't be entrusted to Fox News.

The approach of outfits such as MoveOn.org is so juvenile it's laughable. Imagine if every political organization created litmus tests for news organizations before agreeing to appear on their programming. Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago.

This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism. So they attack their rivals' messenger with a reckless barrage of rhetoric that cuts down their own allies with friendly fire.

By Friday, the Nevada Democratic Party caved in to the lunatic fringe and began seeking a more "appropriate" television partner.

Comedy Central, perhaps?

It is sad that the last line is only partly tongue-in-cheek.

Also interesting is the recent John Edward comment when he was called on his pandering:

(via Extreme Mortman)

In the interview, Edwards said the activists' concerns had no influence on his decision. "I saw the list of debates that we had and the list of things we're doing specific in Nevada, and I said, 'Why are we doing Fox?' I said, 'No, tell them no.' " Asked whether he knew about the bloggers' concerns, Edwards said, "I didn't personally know, no."

He called on Saturday to say: "The correct answer to that is I was generically aware that the Net-roots hates Fox. I did not know about any specific activity about this."

One paragraph up in the article it states:

Last week, Edwards announced he would not participate in a Nevada Democratic debate, co-sponsored by Fox News, which Net-roots activists had been asking the candidates to boycott. His decision was made public in an e-mail from senior campaign adviser Jonathan Prince to the Daily Kos, one of the most prominent liberal blogs.

Honest question to my liberal readers, Does anyone believe that Edwards canceled the debate outside of any knowledge of the netroots getting all frothy about the matter? I don't often throw the term "Liar" around, but. . .

5 comments:

sirocco said...

Nah, Edwards was aware of the netroots uproar, and I don't doubt for a moment it influenced his decision.

As to the editorial itself, however, how can it be claimed to have "hit the nail on the head" when it completely misrepresents the reasons many liberals were opposed to having the debate on Fox?

Framer said...

Sirocco,

I don't know if you have noticed, but you are not really a netroot. Obviously, your reasons for not wanting FOX to do the debate may differ from others.

For most of the netroots, it obviously IS a litmus test thing. The fact that they were considering adding an Air America panelist as a compromise speaks volumes. Say what you wish about FOX news, you have to admit that it is several strata above Air America on the professionalism front. I would add several other news organizations too, although I know that you wouldn't.

I also have to admit that even though the media has a liberal bias, it isn't a mouthpiece for the Netroots yet. That is why they need to do stuff like this, in order to give themselves some equivalence to FOX news as far as stature goes. Right now their credibility is not even close to that of FOX news.

Sadder yet is that John Edwards has sold out to them. If you are going to do that, at least admit it ala Howard Dean. Trying to play off that you aren't dating when you obviously are makes you look even worse. And it WILL get back to the netroots eventually.

Kralmajales said...

Like Sirocco, I do believe that Edwards was influenced in some way by the stir about Fox news and maybe a bit about concerns of how he might be treated by the network. So, yeah, I think you are right.

I wouldn't call it a "sell out" but I would call it good old fashioned pandering. Lets remember, the Democratic primaries are dominated by people who are more liberal, far left, than the average voter and the Republicans primaries are dominated by those on the far right.

If Edwards is pandering to them or a "sell out" then he is no more a sellout to the left than is Romney, Guiliani, and McCain who are, by the way, not conservative and are clearly selling out to the right...right now.

They are all falling all over themselves pandering right now.

Rex Scott said...

Bravo to kralmajales for pointing out that there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around when it comes to politicians. Newt's recent atrocious statements about his infidelities when sucking up to James Dobson is another great example. McCain, meanwhile, ought to be ashamed for how he is kowtowing to the same people who trashed his daughter, wife and war record in 2000.

Having said all that about the GOP, I'm a little weary of the demonizing of FOX News on the Left. Their blathering about FOX is just as ludicrous as the right-wingers who have been ranting about the "liberal media" for decades. Edwards LOST some points with me on that score...and he IS my early fave for our party's nomination.

Journalists have their own views as any of us do. I don't find those on FOX to be any more "biased" than on any other network. Owners of media outlets have been exercising their influence for years. That's their right, I suppose, but I've learned to filter it when I listen to networks or read papers where the owners have well-known slant on the issues.

These folks exist on both the Left and the Right. Practicing journalists work very hard to be objective and fair. I find that to be true with those on FOX, CNN or any other network. Media "conspiracies" are the bogeymen for those across the ideological spectrum who are wont to see cabals everywhere!

sirocco said...

I wanted to cut-and-paste these cople paragraphs from a liberal writer/political critic. I don't necessarily agree with them, but they _are_ funny, and apropos to the thread:

"Figures showing John Edwards trailing in the polls merely reflect his lack of publicity in the period leading up to the first big nationally televised debates, when most voters start to pay attention. Many Democrats like me who are leaning toward Edwards have to be dissatisfied with his marginalization by the mainstream media as well as with his recessiveness during the mastodon-on-mastodon tango between Hillary and Obama. At first I thought Edwards was shrewd to hold fire and pace himself to come on strong later, but this delay is starting to look like uncertainty.

Hence my unhappy surprise when Edwards, who has an attractively comprehensive social policy and strong oratorical skills, was the first to pull out of the scheduled August debate moderated by Fox News. What is this morbid obsession that liberals have with Fox? It's as if Democrats, pampered and spoiled by so many decades of the mainstream media trumpeting the liberal agenda, are so shaky in their convictions that they cannot risk an encounter with opposing views. Democrats have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time and 98 percent of American humanities professors to do their bidding. But no, that's not enough -- every spark of dissent has to be extinguished with buckets of bile.

But Fox is certainly disingenuous with its absurd "fair and balanced" motto. Oh, come on, give it up! Why can't Fox honestly admit its conservative agenda, as do major radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and simply argue that it represents a culturally necessary antidote to the omnipresent liberal line? Yet for Democratic presidential candidates, who will be assessed by voters for their ability to stand up to China, North Korea or al-Qaida, to run squealing from a Fox moderator as if he or she were a boogeyman with blood-dripping fangs makes the whole pack of them look like simpering wusses. Dennis Kucinich was quite right to express his scorn and offer to debate anyone anywhere and under any sponsorship. Nice job of skewering the sacred cow!"