i don't think anyone around these parts takes issue with you going on (0.00 / 0)

maddow's show.  we'd all so be there if we could.  

it's fox news that makes people queasy.  

that said, prolly there is little need to inform us that you will be on maddow's show, considering that we are likely to watch it regardless.  

hope it goes well.    

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:50:14 AM UTC

I wonder.... (0.00 / 0)

Provided that he doesn't get trapped in one of those situations -- O'Reilly springs to mind -- where the host starts shouting at the top of his lungs every time a non-favored guest opens his mouth, I'd think Fox News would be exactly the place to expose right wing viewers to something sensible.

We can always watch him somewhere else ;-)

---

by: William Timberman @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:33:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

yeah, i mean, there are arguments on both sides... (0.00 / 0)

probably there is no need to rehash the argument here/now though....

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:59:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, no...I didn't intend to start anything (4.00 / 1)

I was just thinking that since Fox News seems to be on everywhere I go these day -- doctor's offices, coffee bars, even jury assembly rooms -- it'd be nice to look up and see a friendly face once in a while....

---

by: William Timberman @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 03:08:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's certainly been my experience. The vehemently anti-Fox-appearance (0.00 / 0)

types must be going to fancy places all day long. Or not be in the South.

---

by: sb @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 15:09:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, come on! (0.00 / 0)

Let's rehash, let's rehash!

Those discussions are always so pleasant and illuminating.  

---

by: Jason C. @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 03:47:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I thought you were great (0.00 / 0)

Hope you aren't disappointed.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:44:07 AM UTC

The problem isn't self-promotion, it's stupidity (4.00 / 1)

Kind of a defensive addendum, isn't it, Sirota? I mean, you have reason to be defensive, but still. Act confident. Fake it 'til you make it, as they say in AA.

---

by: Mithras Invicti @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:36:27 AM UTC

Great job! (4.00 / 3)

Hey David, just saw you on TV and you did great. I agree with everything you said and I'm glad to have a good progressive on TV saying those things.

---

by: existenz @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 06:17:49 AM UTC

I enjoyed your appearance.... (0.00 / 0)

on one of my favorite programs!

---

by: DICKERSON3870 @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 06:51:47 AM UTC

I didn't think Rachel's show could be better (4.00 / 2)

But you made tonight's episode particularly worth watching.

Thanks for projecting a progressive vision on a program where Rachel's need to be "talked down" often results in appearances by those from the mushy middle.  

You did great, David.

---

by: TeddySanFran @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:47:11 AM UTC

Troll-o-meter (4.00 / 1)

Those who criticize Sirota's Fox News appearances: "Trolls"

Who said this?

We are all judged on everything we do - and no one should be immune from that..

- David Sirota

David, you did a nice job on Maddow. Your original piece of reporting on the bailout was equally good. Didn't see you on the Fake News (don't watch it).

Personally, I don't care too much whether you go on Fox or not; a strong argument can be made either way. You shouldn't concern yourself with people who criticize you for your Fox News appearances or your self-promotion. You can't please everyone. You do good work. You have to do what you think is right.

It's kind of like a lawyer who goes to work for a big law firm that represents a wide range of clients, from the NFL to Chiquita Brands, and is asked to represent a client with a history of serious crimes. No one could know the full measure of the moral and ethical issues facing that lawyer, and to insist that the lawyer refuse to represent the client would be, well, troll-ish, wouldn't it?

Actually, no. I don't believe that. It's important to make those moral arguments, although it might be more credible to include all the shades of gray when making those moral arguments.

So, can we expect another one-sided diary on Eric Holder and a follow-up appearance on Fox News sometime soon?  I wonder, if Fox News offered you a show with Karl Rove, a kind of Hannity-Colmes thing, for a $250,000 per year, would you take it? The people who would be paying your salary -- the advertisers -- are companies like big oil, big Pharma, etc. The same folks who pay Neal Cavuto's salary.

---

by: CaptCT @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 16:35:55 PM UTC

I just don't get the anit-Fox-appearance crowd (0.00 / 0)

I think progressives should always go on Fox News and debate our positions for three reasons.

1) If we feel strongly we are right about an issue, our position can stand on its own merits, regardless of who's moderating.

2) Television air time is finite.  Every minute that they give to us to make our case -- no matter how grudgingly or brief -- is another minute they CAN'T devote to their own agenda.  This is my corollary to Mudcat Saunders' "electoral math," which says that every Republican voter you can convince to vote Democrat is worth two votes -- the one the Democrat gets and the one the Republican doesn't get.

3) Their side may attack our position and ridicule it, but by even giving it the merit of their attacks and ridicule, they reinforce its legitimacy.  If our position had no merit, they could just as easily ignore it and talk about abortion or immigration or some other GOP red herring.

---

by: gas28man @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 19:44:01 PM UTC

On the other hand ... (0.00 / 0)

1. It recognizes Fox as a legitimate news agency. It isn't.

2. It lends credibility to Fox's claims of "fair and balanced" reporting. Another joke.

3. Fox typically throws liberals on the show to better make its argument against our points of view -- to discredit those points of view. (Its hard-core right-wing viewers are unlikely to be swayed by "liberal" viewpoints.)

4. Most importantly, by having respected progressives on their shows, theoretically, it could boost their ratings, adding more viewers and potentially more revenue to a network that functions as the right wing's propaganda machine.

I'd rather that no one watch Fox News, have their ratings plummet, and see Murdoch lose billions of dollars, giving him less money to spend on buying up other media companies.  

Then again, I see your points too. And David tends to be one of the better representatives of the progressive point of view. But I lean towards not watching/not associating with it, totally discrediting it, and using other media to get out progressive viewpoints to a potentially more receptive audience.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 20:28:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]