it'll be a mixed bag (0.00 / 0)

My prediction:  Obama will go on Fox sometime but not often compared to other networks. He was pretty good at staying away in the primaries but eventually went on O'Reilly. He'll call on Fox reporters in press conferences but not when they don't show the conference. So if you require 100% exclusion, you'll feel betrayed, but if you want some message to get out that Fox is biased it'll be okay.

 

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 12:55:06 PM CDT

Sounds like you and Sirota might have an interesting discussion about this (4.00 / 3)

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 12:58:01 PM CDT

I was thinking the same thing (4.00 / 1)

also Howard Dean.

---

by: AliceDem @ Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 12:59:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Certainly Hope They Keep Smacking Them (4.00 / 1)

Fox has chutzpah: we call the president a racist, fascist, Hitler and a danger to the Republic on an hourly if not minute by minute basis, just to keep ginning up an aura of 'populist' antipathy to the man. Why feed their ravenous yellow journalism beast?

---

by: jjmm @ Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 13:53:33 PM CDT

Who are the blind progressives on FOX? (0.00 / 0)

I have long thought no serious progressive should go on a TV show where the game is fixed

But if you're looking for someone to blame in part for the continued existence of FOX, blame progressives who continue to go on, blindly thinking "surely among that viewer demographic that voted for Bush in 2004 by an 88%-7% margin, there must be a moderate I can speak to

Just wondering who you think these serious progressives are going on FOX. Seems to me FOX will always be able to find someone to assume a "progressive" position in order to ridicule it. Simple economics. But who are the serious progressives that continue to be on? It would be interesting to see a list and determine whether or not they can be qualified as progressive or not.

Secondly, I see no harm in certain progressives going on the show who are actually able to defend themselves. I think Barney Frank did a good job the second time around, even the first time, on the O'Reilly show. There are always persuadable people out there. It's a fallacy to assume that the audience is ideologically immutable.  

The problem is in having so-called progressives who are unable to effectively defend and attack.

In fact, I would say Obama should go on the O'Reilly show. It would be tough, but I bet he would come off looking pretty good, too.  

 

---

by: frankenheimer @ Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 13:55:09 PM CDT

I call them (4.00 / 4)

"tomato can liberals." Like you know when a boxing promoter has a fighter and he's trying to build up his record, so he schedules him against a string of "tomato cans," guys who make a living taking dives.

Real liberals, who actually know how to fight back and have the desire to do so, don't seem to get booked very often, do they?

But in my opinion, Sirota is one who does.


Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 14:08:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Zowie! A post from Sadie Baker that I can recommend! (4.00 / 1)

And "tomato can liberals" is a zinger!

Seriously!

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 15:01:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The point (0.00 / 0)

is not whether they can defend themselves. That's falling prey to the "we have to challenge the views on FOX otherwise they'll go unchallenged! The horror!" argument.

The point is to not give moderate FOX viewers any reason to turn in if it's all conservative trash anyway. Moderate voters have a reason to tune in if (a) the programming is interesting, such as the heavily-advertised Hillary Clinton with Bill O showdown that brought them tons of viewers (b) there is a "fair and balanced" aspect to the programming, e.g. Republican strategist versus Democratic strategist, or Howard Dean versus Chris Wallace.

The point is to eliminate both (a) and (b) and suck away their moderate viewers looking for interesting, "fair and balanced" programming.

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 15:17:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some of your premises are questionable (0.00 / 0)

Namely these:

(1) That moderate FOX viewers tune in because of possible progressive content counterbalancing conservative content;

(2) That the survival of FOX is dependent on occasional progressive content;

(3) That it's counterproductive for progressives to participate on FOX.

This seems to fall in line with Mr. Rosenberg's recent critique of Maddow's show, which he would prefer no longer receive any conservative guests. Even if we accept that the differences between conservatives and progressives are so intractable that there can never be any common ground for argument, I find the idea of retreating into corners counterproductive, since the underlying advantage of progressives is precisely in demonstrating the power of rational argument in the context of debate. This cannot be accomplished in a vacuum.

Returning to your premises, why do you assume that moderates tune in for progressive content or fair and balanced debate? Why do we tune in for television news at all? There are many reasons why a moderate might be watching FOX NEWS, the least of which is to gain a fair and balanced understanding of the issues. Some people tune in out of habit, others for entertainment, others because that's what someone in the house watches, others because they don't know any better. The latter reason is probably the most likely. Because we follow the news so closely, we tend to assume everyone is aware of FOX's conservative bias, whereas there may be a portion of the viewership that is unaware of this, even unaware of the notion of bias altogether. I don't know, this analysis strikes me as the type of conclusion academics draw without consulting the facts in the field, so to speak.

The second premise is also far fetched to me, and in any case is so improbable that it's not worth discussing. There will always be token progressives available, even if just posing as progressive, if the aim is to find someone to humiliate and ridicule. Besides, progressives can be ridiculed without any progressives actually being present, in the same way Olberman survives without conservative guests.

The third premise is the one that seems to pervade some analysis on this site. As I said, if you send in some competent debaters, it's possible to effectively demonstrate the double-standards and fallacies in conservative arguments, both for potentially moderate viewers, but also for progressive ones that do not regularly watch FOX and use these clips as rallying points or as a means of weakening their positions. Didn't you find it satisfying to see Gibbs take out Hannity during the presidential campaign? This is the stuff that goes viral and in its own way undermines FOX from the outside. In other words, there's more than one way to think about the advantages of having "serious" progressives on FOX, other than just to think of them as persuading moderate FOX viewers. Finally, it is often in the contrast between the histrionic conservatives and measured progressives, that some conservatives may begin to reproach the current republican way. Operating in a total vacuum, these contrasts would never be possible.

I just find the argument unnecessarily reductive, although in an ideal world I would prefer not to have our progressives exposed to that hate. But there are some advantages to intelligently using progressives on FOX, and I don't think these are outweighed by your assumptions, which I find somewhat questionable for the reasons stated above.  

   

---

by: frankenheimer @ Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 17:39:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know if this is useful or not (0.00 / 0)

but from my observation, most conversos do not pass through the middle in a neat, logical progression. They jump from one end of the spectrum straight to the other.

I'm not sure if the goal is to win converts, I understand there is some controversy about the value of that strategy.

But if it is, then the best way to do that is to put forth fighting liberals who can win people over with their fighting spirit. The kind of people who watch FOX think with their guts, not their heads, and gut is the way to speak to them.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 17:54:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]