Hillary Clinton’s Bone-Headed Decision To Debate On Fox News

Fox News is reporting that Hillary Clinton’s campaign has accepted an invitation to participate in a debate on Fox News.

Oh Great! Hasn’t she read Starve The Beast yet?

It’s a little difficult to comprehend why Clinton would commit such a flagrant foul. Sure, she has had a relatively cozy relationship with Rupert Murdoch. Sure, she has accepted contributions from him and appeared at fundraisers that he sponsored on her behalf. Sure, her husband signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that opened the door for unprecedented corporate consolidation in the media business, which Fox exploited to its fullest.

Hmmm. Maybe it’s not that difficult to comprehend, after all. But on the other hand, Murdoch’s network is maligning her 24/7. His New York Post endorsed Obama and in the editorial said that she was “opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled, infinitely self-indulgent, self-centered, and [reeking] of cynicism and opportunism.” The same article slams Obama just as hard, even though he is the endorsee. And Clinton’s response to that is to reward Fox with her presence at their party?

Barack Obama could blow this wide open by declining to accept the Fox debate. This would demonstrate greater courage on his part by not buckling under to the media titan. It would honor the values of Democrats who don’t want Fox treated as if they were a neutral and viable news source. And it would hang Clinton out to dry with her pals at Fox because she couldn’t very well do the debate alone. However, at present there has been no conclusive statement from the Obama camp as to whether he will play along. His spokesman said:

“As of right now, there are no debates on our schedule at all. We’ll figure out our schedule, including any debates, soon.”

The embargo of Fox News must continue, and having supposed allies like Clinton betray us on this is disappointing, to say the least. The effort to sequester the pseudo-news network has been measurably effective. Their ratings are virtually stagnant, while their competitors are soaring. They are noticeably perturbed and are showing their frustrations on the air. And you know that you’ve had an impact when Fox has to report about itself that…

“Liberal activists in moveon.org and the blogosphere, as well as former candidate John Edwards, scuttled a Democratic debate on Fox earlier this year. Asked by one of those liberal bloggers, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, whether accepting the FNC invitation would ‘legitimize’ Fox News, Wolfson pointed out that both Sen Obama and Sen Clinton have appeared multiple times on Fox”

I must admit that I get a bit of a thrill seeing that Fox has to address its own legitimacy in their reporting. Notice how Wolfson uses previous appearances to justify those in the future, That is precisely why EVERY appearance should be refused. And as if to substantiate their spurious status, the previous debate was not scuttled earlier this year. It was scuttled early last year. But who really expects Fox News to get the facts straight?

It’s Super Tuesday and there will be a lot of news flowing in a couple of hours. But this is a bad day for the Clinton campaign regardless of what happens with the election results. She is hurting her party and her cause, and she should reconsider her participation, or should I say collaboration, with Fox News and revoke her acceptance.


10 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton’s Bone-Headed Decision To Debate On Fox News

  1. Give it a rest. The new leader of the free world has to talk to everyone- including the assholes. Let’s judge her by how she breaks the news to them that she is going to reverse everything they cherish.

    • Huh? The new leader of the free world is under NO obligation to talk to everyone – especially assholes. In fact, it is standard protocol that high level officials do not engage lesser or disreputable figures.

      Clinton is demeaning herself by associating with the loonies at Fox.

  2. Fox is not a news organization. They offer political commentary which also happens to be consistently one-sided and shallow. On the occasions that they do admit that they are offering a political point of view they contend that it is mostly main-stream or just slightly right of center. I think that is a dangerous myth.

    I’m not saying they should be taken off the air, but they shouldn’t be given additional credibility as an objective news reporting media outlet.

  3. I like what Heather said, but I don’t think Hillary and the Democrats are going to have the chance do that. They aren’t going to debate against Hannity or O’Reilly – they are going to debate each other.

    Even if Fox were to present even-handed questions (and I think they’d have to, but I don’t know to what degree), they still have the opportunity to sit around afterwards stating “how out of touch with America the Democrats are”, or “how the party has been taken over by extremists”, or “how they waffled on certain issues”, etc.

    The analysis would be about who was planning to raise taxes the most (not should we raise taxes and why or why not). The analysis would be about who wants to fail in Iraq the most (not what are reasonable objectives and how do we achieve them). The analysis would be about who has the largest socialist agenda (not how do we best resolve disproportionate medical spending in the US, in comparison to the rest of the industrialized nations).

    That’s what we generally see now anyway. Why would it be different if they hosted the debates themselves?

    I think its good for the candidates to get that exposure (to that audience) but it gives credibility to Fox as a “fair and balanced network”. We really need national discussion on many of these issues. It doesn’t happen on Fox.

    • You could also expect a lot of “Have you stopped beating your wife?” type questions.

      To the extent that we need more discussion of issues, there are plenty of real news networks on which to do that.

  4. That brings to mind an editorial headline I saw during the last Presidential campaign in a very conservative business paper (Investors Business Daily). I remember it reading as ~

    The Kerry Fiscal Plan – Will It Destroy Our Economy or Merely Cripple It?

  5. So Mark, it’s OK for the leader of the free world to talk to extremists in Iran or Syria but not people at the Fox News Channel?

    I thought liberals are supposed to be tolerant of other opinions, or is it only those that you agree with? You sound more like an old fashioned conservative than a true liberal.

    • Are you comparing international diplomacy with TV talking-head-athons? C’mon, Henry, you know that’s silly.

      Countries talk to other countries to promote their mutual welfare. But there is no such obligation with regard to the media – especially when a specific media outlet exists only to be hostile and spread propaganda.

      It’s not about tolerance of opinions. It’s about respect. Democrats shouldn’t go on Fox for the same reason they shouldn’t go on Jerry Springer. They are both disreputable, exploitive, tabloid garbage.

Comments are closed.