Recently, some democratic candidates have refused to appear on a presidential debate co-sponsored by Fox News. Here's some background...
LAS VEGAS, Nevada (CNN) -- A Nevada Democratic presidential debate that was to have been co-hosted by Fox News Network was canceled by organizers, in part because of a joke by Fox Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes about presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama.
You can read the whole article here...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/10/debate.canceled/index.html
The argument Democrats have made is two fold. The "concrete" reason some have boycotted the debate was Ailes's joke about Barack Obama, purposely confusing him with Osama Bin Laden.
The second issue Democrats (both candidates and constituents) have with a Fox hosted presidential debate is whether or not Fox, because of its blatant Republican bias, is a legitimate news source. While the Fox News does reach millions of viewers, should Democrats legitimize the cable news channel despite its incessant Republican propaganda?
Fox news brought Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich on the "The Big Story with John Gibson" to discuss the matter. (Ironically, they brought a democratic candidate on the show to discuss having a presidential debate but then didn't ask him about his stand on any issues). Kucinich said that Democrats should debate on Fox News because so many people watch the channel. His qualification for legitimacy seems to be the number of people who watch Fox and not their reporting procedures.
Here's a quote from Kucinich: But what I am going to say is that FOX is a legitimate news agency that has the ability to reach out to millions of Americans, so why not get that message out? That is what I want to do, and all Democrats should be capable of doing it.
Read the transcript here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258803,00.html
According to McQuail, all news/media sources are going to hold some ideological bias- intended or not- because the reporting of news is a selective process. While Fox is repeatedly made the scapegoat of the news media for its obvious bias, some would argue that CNN has a liberal bias- and Republicans wouldn't be likely to boycott a debate on that network. So if all news media contains some inherent bias, what means more in terms of legitimacy- readership or journalistic practices?
As media professials and critics of the media, I imagine most of us would be inclined to say journalistic practices. However, Kucinich does make a few good point on why it might be beneficial for Democrats to debate on Fox. You can read them for yourself in the article but I think the following are especially noteworthy:
1.Anyone who wants to be president of the United States should have the capacity to speak to people of any particular ideology.
2.FOX is a good litmus test because if you can stand the scrutiny of FOX, with what you stand for, and all of the FOX News agencies that gather the information, their anchors can ask you questions, well that is part of what the test is of leadership.
Even though I agree with Kucinich on some of his points- that even though Fox has a conservative slant, the debate should be opened up to both parties despite ideology- it's Fox's semiology that strips them of their legitimacy in my opinion.
Notice some of the language Gibson uses to describe the democratic party:
-"Radical liberals wanted a pullout and they got it"
-"by radical leftist groups "
-"Dennis Kucinich is slamming his own party for boycotting the upcoming fair and balanced debate on the No. 1 cable news network." Umm...Kucinich doesn't slam his party, and I love that the debate is self proclaimed as fair and balanced. In one sentence Gibson tries to strip the Dems of credibility and reassign it to Fox.
What do you think? Is Fox a legitimate news source? Should democratic candidates be willing to debate there?
-Kim Pedersen
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that Fox’s linguistics is as important as their semiotics. Their combination of flashy graphics and frank commentary appeal to the large population of Americans who have aligned their ideology with that of Fox’s and tune in regularly.
I have a friend who would agree with Kucinich: that the debate should take place on FOX because so many people watch the channel. My friend also measures the network's credibility this way saying that if it wasn't good so many people wouldn't watch it.
I disagree. Whether it is popular or not doesn't qualify legitimacy or journalistic integrity.
Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action, said in a statement regarding this debate, "We hope this sets a precedent for all Democrats, that Fox should be treated as a right-wing misinformation network, not legitimized as a neutral source of news."
I am in the middle of these statements by Kucinich and Pariser. If the debate were to have succeeded or if a new one develops, sponsored by FOX, I think that the democratic candidates should be alert to semiotic and linguistic bias and anything that comes advertised as -fair and balanced- be so or be brought to attention and clarified.
Fox is a legit news source, despite all its "blatant Republican propaganda." If this class has taught us anything, it's that everyone has an agenda. Fox's is just a little more obvious. Still, that does not mean it's not credible as a news medium.
If these presidential hopefuls want to be elected, they'd better suck it up and do the freakin' debate. While some strong Democratic supporters may accuse them of caving in to the Republican station, they would lose more voters by immaturely refusing to appear because of a joke. That's not to say the joke was appropriate, because it wasn't, but they would lose more support by acting like whiny brats and not appearing. If anything, this situation should motivate them even more to debate on Fox.
And John Edwards dropping out of the debate altogether because of Fox? He lost my vote just by that supposedly "strategic" move.
It seems as if, like mentioned in the original post that every news station has a selective nature which leads to an eventual/ theoretical bias. So, I do not think it is safe to say that because FOX is a "republican" network they are not a credible/ suitable source for the news/debate. However, I do feel that other "non-republican" or "liberal" networks like CNN should also hold debates/ cover the debate to (if bias affects the results, questions and or answers) level the playing field.
Further, if the debate on FOX is not aired live we must be extremely cautious of the way FOX (and others) frame the results.
Also, if a candidate can or cannot speak to/ answer questions from any source, no matter if said source is on their side or not, speaks very highly about how they will lead the country if appointed the coveted position. And, if you are a good politician you are sure practice in the art of providing the answer that best suits you, no matter the question.
Lastly, it is almost as if the candidates who are protesting the FOX debate are scared or not prepared for anything and everything, even a controversial question (oh no, not that).
Post a Comment