The Democrats Should Debate...on Fox

First let me say that I am currently a registered Democrat, but there are certain things that get under my skin no matter what party is attached to it. Refusing to debate is one of them.

When I first heard that the Democrats were going to stage a boycott against the Fox network my knee-jerk reaction was "great!" because I understand everything Fox has done to smear Democrats. But after a while of thinking about this my position has changed. There comes a time and a place when one must reach out to the other to try to make good, and I believe Fox is attempting to do just that. There is also a bigger and broader picture in this issue that has been lost in all of the "Fox hating". It is the concept of candidates getting together and discussing issues which has been lost because of the role of money in politics.

Let's do a quick recap of the Democrats who pulled out of both Fox Debates:
John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton (in that order).
Now what do all three of these candidates have in common? They have all been anointed as the top three candidates to be the Democratic nomination for President in 2008 by the mainstream media. Those three candidates receive all the mainstream coverage leaving out the less funded candidates like Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd. Because these candidates receive very little coverage they can't afford to miss a debate, and it's no coincidence that the top three funded candidates dropped out of both debates.

Now let's examine the individual reasons why each candidate would want to drop out of a Fox debate pushing aside the fact that is Fox right leaning(I will get to this in a little bit). John Edwards may not want to go on the Fox network because Ann Coulter called him a "faggot" at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Barack Obama may not want to go on the Fox network because he is constantly being referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama", and Fox News chairman and CEO Roger Ailes made a bad joke about Obama while accepting the Radio-Television News Directors Association and Foundation's First Amendment Leadership Award. Hillary Clinton may not want to go on Fox because Rupert Murdoch held a fundraiser for her Senate re-election campaign in July 2006. Wait a minute that's a reason to go! I am guessing the reason she dropped out of the Fox debates is because she had to "go with the flow"and also because she has a track record of avoiding debates from as recent as last year when she refused to debate her Democratic primary challenger Jonathan Tasini.

Now let's get back to the subject of the right-wing slant on Fox. What do all the of the reasons I stated above have to do with preventing a candidate from stating their opinion? Absolutely nothing. From everything that I know of about both of the debates there was absolutely no indication that the candidates would have been asked "When did you stop beating your wife" type of questions. Here is the reason why the top ranking Nevada Democrats scheduled the first Fox debate in the first place:

This was done because the Nevada Democratic Party is reaching out to new voters and we strongly believe that a Democrat will not win Nevada unless we find new ways to talk to new people.

And the reason why they decided to cancel the debate:

To say the least, this was not a popular decision. But it is one that the Democratic Party stood by. However, comments made last night by Fox News President Roger Ailes in reference to one of our presidential candidates went too far. We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments.

The big problem with this excuse is that Fox news has been attacking Democrats for years, and attacking Barack Obama before this statement on actual newscasts rather then just dinners. Another problem with the excuse for cancellation is the reason for scheduling it in the first place. So what the Nevada Democrats are trying to tell us now is that they don't "need to find new ways to talk to new people to win Nevada."


As of now the second scheduled debate on Fox which is sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus(CBC) has not been cancelled and the CBC says they are still going on with it even without John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, but many people are speculating the debate will be cancelled because the "top tier" candidates won't attend nobody will watch the debate. From a strategy standpoint I can understand why Edwards, Obama, and Clinton would not want to be left solo with the "lower tier" candidates because they don't want to make themselves vulnerable and lose votes to the "lower tier" candidates making the other two "top tier" candidates more powerful. That's my theory why since Edwards dropped out first then Obama and Hillary followed. As I mentioned above the real losers will be the "lower tier" candidates like Biden, Kucinich, Richardson, and Dodd. To have three out of the seven candidates possibly dictate whether a debate will take place is absolutely undemocratic. Don't think Edwards, Obama, and Hillary don't understand the power they have either. Should the debate be cancelled they will escape unscathed because their absence would be made an issue if the debate had actually taken place.

Another problem I have with this refusal to debate is the issue of refusing to stand up to Fox and also the issue of Fox trying to make good with Democrats by letting them debate. Wasn't it just last October when Bill Clinton had his showdown with Chris Wallace and Democrats were all giddy because Bill Clinton stood up against Fox? This interview temporarily grew a new spine for Democrats and sparked a wave of Democrats slamming Fox during their on-air interviews with the network.

The Democrats are in a tough position now. It's hard to defend the Fox isn't "Fair and Balanced" argument when Fox is willing to cover Democrats and the Democrats are the ones refusing to appear on the network for a debate. So now it becomes an issue of Democrats not wanting to appear on Fox when Fox is actually trying to be "Fair and Balanced". So now I don't want to hear the Democrats whine that only conservatives are invited on Fox to talk about issues when they could have had at least two events just for themselves.

The Big Winners: John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton
The Big Loser: Democracy

The Sleeping Giant (Part 1)

No, I'm not talking about "Andre the Giant". I'm talking about the mainstream media. It's time they stop snoring and get with the program. There are many ways to analyze this issue, but I will start with basics and build from there.

The mainstream media(MSM) has such a huge impact on society that it can change the world we live in just by delivering "news". The MSM decides what is worthy for viewing, and goes from there. When I say MSM I don't just mean television, but radio and newspaper/magazine also. What makes the MSM so powerful are the corporate connections they have within them and for some they have political connections. With all the connections they have giving financial support it helps put out of business smaller publications or news organizations which would give more localized news, or a much more independent view. This has a profound effect on our society because the MSM decides what we see, hear, or read. Sounds scary doesn't it?

A lot of people like to believe that CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, UPN, CW, and CNN are all different news organizations, and they are but do they actually deliver different "news"? The answer is no. If you examine all those broadcasts at the same time I can almost gurantee you they will all report the same top stories. The real test comes after the top stories, and what they will report afterwards. This brings up a whole new debate about "what is news?".


What is News? That's a difficult question to answer because if you ask a bunch of people you will get many different answers. I believe a news story should be something that affects our daily life. I don't know how the MSM would answer this question given the state of news broadcasts today. Watching a news broadcasts today usually contains a story about an entertainer. Is this really news? Do we really want our mainstream media telling us about Paris Hiltons personal life, or who Jennifer Lopez is marrying next? The MSM will tell you that people want to know about that stuff so that's why they put that out. In late February the Associated Press decided to experiment a weeklong ban of covering Paris Hilton:

"It was only meant to be a weeklong ban — not the boldest of journalistic initiatives, and one, we realized, that might seem hypocritical once it ended. And it wasn't based on a view of what the public should be focusing on — the war in Iraq, for example, or the upcoming election of the next leader of the free world, as opposed to the doings of a partygoing celebrity heiress/reality TV star most famous for a grainy sex video."

This was the effect:

"It turned out that people noticed plenty — but not in the way that might have been expected. None of the tens of thousands of media outlets that depend on AP called in asking for a Paris Hilton story. No one felt a newsworthy event had been ignored. (To be fair, nothing too out-of-the-ordinary happened in the Hilton universe.) "

While I agree with the action of blacking out Paris Hilton I find their reason troubling. So you mean to tell me they didn't base their decision on what was more newsworthy? It turns out they just did it for the heck of it, but what I found interesting was that nobody called them for a story during that period of time. The focus should be that the AP provides the story in the first place and is able to pass it on to the MSM to pollute the airwaves. A gun can't shoot without the ammo.

Is it right to place all the blame on the AP for all coverage of celebrities like Paris Hilton when other more newsworthy stories could be coveraged? No. The MSM ultimately decides what to show, and what not to show. Right now the MSM has turned into an entertainment show. Let's not give the free pass to newspapers or magazines either. New York newspapers like the Daily News and New York Post often have headlines that you would only expect to see in the National Enquirer.


How do we fix this problem? That's a difficult question to answer, because there is only so much the average American can do to change the quality of a mainstream media news broadcast. I talk about this to many people, and most people have the "live with it" attitude. We must not lay down and accept defeat. When I read the AP story about them having an experimental weeklong ban of Paris Hilton I sent them a "Thank You" note. Even though it was only a weeklong ban I felt it was important to tell them to continue it in the future so they know that this is an important issue. I encourage everyone to do the same. We need to reward those news organizations or publications that take news seriously, and put the pressure on the ones that fail to keep us informed.

In my next blog post I will discuss the media impact on politics.

Please leave your comments, criticisms, or any questions you would like to discuss.

Click here to speak your mind on this topic

Dre Enters the Blogosphere!!

Entering the blogosphere was no easy decision for me. In fact this was a tough decision. Blogging has been around for years now and I have to admit that I am no big fan of personal blogging. I have found in the past through my experience with Xanga that it was used and probably still used as a method to bitch and whine (sort of like what im doing now!), and at the same time conceal the fact that you are a "bitcher"(if that's a word) in "real life". What do I mean by this? People would live their happy lives and when night time came it became "emo time". There is no problem with that, but I take issue with people that complain about someone being negative when at the same time they bitch, whine, and complain on their Xanga begging for attention. A lot of the people I knew were living double lives like this, and I found this trend much more common in the female blogs than male blogs I encountered. Why is this? I don't know.

I can see why someone would live a double life on the blogs. For some people blogging is a way to vent and keep personal diaries. For other people blogging is a way to promote themselves and for specific purposes other then personal. For other people blogging is a way to bitch and whine because they have nobody to bitch and whine in real life to. Blogging is their only way relieve stress. As we see today blogs now play a big role and offer a different dynamic to life. Some people now make a living just by blogging.

Personally, I plan to use this blog as a place to express my opinion where people can openly disagree and talk about various issues. Right now my goal in life is to become involved in politics. Whether that goal involves running for political office remains to be seen. What I do know is whatever I decide to do I will have to continue to be open minded on every issue, and be willing to listen to other peoples opinions.

Instead of discouraging debate we need to encourage debate. Let everyones voice be heard!