A Note On Media

by: David Sirota

Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 17:39


Just to answer some commenters questions from my last post: I appear on Fox News whenever Fox News asks me to appear, as I do with all media (and I have never once been paid to be on radio or television).  I think other ideological progressives should go on all media, too. I say that because I think it is important to have solid progressive voices play offense in all media outlets when we are given a chance. And if you watch my appearance on Fox News this morning, I took a lot of time to point out that McCain has changed, that he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, and that he has allowed lobbyists to infest his campaign.

That said, I'm not going to be a partisan shill, simply saying "Obama Good, McCain Bad" all day like a parrot. I'm going to give my honest assessment from a progressive perspective - because in this world you really only have two things: 1) Your family and 2) Your credibility. And my view is that progressive voices should be in all media and express a progressive message in all media - whether it helps or hurts Democrats, whether it helps or hurts Republicans. It's not about the party or the candidate - its about the movement and the ideology.

I make no apologies for appearing on all different media outlets and being a full-throated progressive. And I also make no apologies for telling it like it is, whether people afflicted with Partisan War Syndrome like it or not.

If you don't agree with me, I respect your opinion - but I'm not changing, and I think it is folly for progressives to not take as many media opportunities as possible. Living on the coasts may delude you into thinking all outreach to conservative voters is silly, but I live out here in the Mountain West, and I believe that a populist progressive message can win over those voters (and I'd say the elections in the last 4 years out here prove that). But only if we are willing to deliver that message in as many outlets as possible.

P.S. As for the persistent few of you who get angry and jealous everytime any progressive appears in any media whatsoever (and you know who you are, because you get angry at everyone from me, to Markos, to Rachel Maddow to anyone else), I will say what I always say: Please crawl back to your cave of bitterness, while the rest of us out here keep fighting for the change you like to whine about.
David Sirota :: A Note On Media

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A Note On Media | 72 comments
They aren't conservatives (4.00 / 1)
They are Republicans. Rasmussen says more that 80% of Fox viewers will vote for McCain. You are wasting your time trying to deliver a message to an audience that won't listen.
Last I checked (4.00 / 4)
Republicans are voting in droves for Democrats in the Mountain West, and Obama hopes those Republicans vote for him in those same Mountain West states so that he wins the election.

As someone who has worked on campaigns where we had to rely on Republican AND Democratic voters, I believe your idea that we shouldn't try to reach those voters is folly.

[ Parent ]
Seems to me Obama has more problems with Democrats (4.00 / 3)
The polls are pretty clear that Repubs are voting for McCain. There is of course nothing wrong with reaching out to all voters directly in the Mountain West and beyond. Indeed, I would argue it essential. I just disagree that Fox is the place to do it. And especially not by bashing the party nominee and his running mate. We will just have to agree to disagree on that.
[ Parent ]
Different goals (4.00 / 3)
My first and foremost goal is to talk about progressive issues - not simply to elect any Democrat whatsoever. I think expressing those progressive issues and values in any media is important, whether it hurts or helps individual Democrats, or whether it hurts or helps individual Republicans.

In other words, my work is about a movement - not about a party.

[ Parent ]
Fair enough (4.00 / 2)
Though I fail to see how hurting the national ticket of the Democratic party helps progressive issues. But like you said, different people have different goals and believe in different paths to reach them.
[ Parent ]
Don't think its hurting (4.00 / 2)
I don't think using elections as an instrument to push politicians to be better is "hurting the national ticket" - in fact, I think it helps it. Progressive pressure should make candidates more progressive, and we've seen how that helps them win elections. No progressive pressure in the name of "winning elections" ends up permitting Democrats to move to the right, and lose elections - we've been taught that time and time again.

So I think applying pressure and pointing out weaknesses on progressive issues like the Bankruptcy Bill and the war is the way to get these candidates - and the rest of the party - to be at once more progressive and THEREFORE better able to win the election.

[ Parent ]
Exactly what progressive goals (4.00 / 4)
are met by calling him "one of the most arrogant and conceited people in Washington" or how it makes Biden "more progressive". Or do you think repeating wingnut gossip gives you more credibility with the fuxnews crazies?

If you'd just stuck to policy I'd buy your explanation.

[ Parent ]
You haven't proven your assumption (4.00 / 2)
I fail to see how hurting the national ticket of the Democratic party helps progressive issues

How does Sirota's appearing on Fox hurt the Democratic ticket?  You haven't even argued that, much less proven it.  Your whole argument such as it was was that it didn't help the Democrats, that no Fox listeners are reachable.

The only reason NOT to appear on Fox that ever made any sense was support a tactic of boycotting them and forcing a Democratic debate off Fox.  That made some sense as a tactic.  Extending that into a permanent boycott does not.

Sirota's right, you're wrong.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Semantics (0.00 / 0)
Hurt, bash, whatever. Like you said it didn't help. That was the point I and others were making. Anyway, I respect your opinion. However, your declaration with regard to an absolute truth is something else entirely.
[ Parent ]
You can't read very well, can you? (0.00 / 0)


sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
And I can;'t post very well. (0.00 / 0)
I hit "post" too soon.

You said Sirota's appearance didn't help.   I didn't.  I merely summarized your argument.

I didn't say anything about absolute truth either.  We're all just giving our opinion here.

But how do progressives appearing on Fox hurt the Democratic ticket?  You still haven't told us.


sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Excuse my grammar (0.00 / 0)
I was paraphrasing myself. Badly. I should have said "like you said I said" or "how you quoted me".

What I definitely said was "hurt" but it was just another way of saying "bash". It doesn't hurt since the people on Fox are already voting for McCain hence it doesn't help either. Just my opinion which is as valid as yours.

The absolute truth I was referring to was "Sirota's right, you're wrong.". You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe. We both could be wrong. That was what I was trying to say.

[ Parent ]
Okay (0.00 / 0)
And you might want to take a look at my other post below, which I think gives a more valid reason for being uncomfortable with this appearance by Sirota on Fox.

I disagree both with the "never appear on Fox" crowd, and also a bit with Sirota's "I will say whatever I please on Fox".  It is a tricky area and both of these approaches are too simplistic.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
and (0.00 / 0)
t
h
a
t
'
s

m
y

l
a
s
t

p
o
s
t

o
n

t
h
i
s

t
h
r
e
a
d
.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Yes, I saw it and was going to reply to it (0.00 / 0)
Believe it or not I don't think we are too far apart on this. Seabrook puts my POV across better than me just below it.  
[ Parent ]
questions about strategy and not intention (4.00 / 4)
Having dome communications work before, but without doubting very much your sincerity towards movement-based progressive work (as opposed to partisan Democratic work), I have some issues with your communications philosophy.  Essentially, I think that there's a greater need to understand the distinctions between your intention, how you are perceived, the conversation that generally happens on the outlet, yoour contribution to the type of message that will eventually result from this, and the overall effect that this has on political discourse.

I appear on Fox News whenever Fox News asks me to appear, as I do with all media (and I have never once been paid to be on radio or television).

What is Fox News?  It is a rightwing propaganda machine.  It is also a television station that many Americans watch.  So the question for me is, who are these Americans and what do they need to hear from the progressive movement and who is the person most appropriate to deliver it?  When Fox News brought you on (i watched about half the clip), they're bringing you on as a surrogate ias part of the conventional liberal/conservative = democrat/republican framework, but I didn't hear you challenge this.  That in and of itself would be a contribution.  I also saw you reinforce several ideas (Biden is gaffe prone, McCain is different now, etc.) - some of which may be helpful.  But my question is mainly in terms of approach - was there thought that went into which memes you would be trying to push or create in segments like these in this particular form of media?  What is the profile of Fox viewers and what messages from your particular variant of the progressive standpoint are they most likely to hear?  Should you emphasize White working-class issues ("Joe Biden is far less wealthy than other Democrats and the gaffe thing should instruct us that we should be more tolerant of people's ways of speaking instead of policing speech; McCain on the other hand is sending your children to die in the war while Biden is sending his son"); attack Republican base loyalty towards McCain ("what's most offensive about him is that he's not only espousing socially conservative ideas but he doesn't really believe them - he's a hypocrite and can't be counted on as a real conservative...also he was involved in the savings and loan scandal and says he doesn't understand anything about economics").  Etc.  Anyway, these are just thoughts - but I think it would help to think in a bit more targeted and informed way before appearing on these shows.

I think this applies generally - different audiences, different facets of your general worldview need to go out, but in ways the audience can hear.  It's a basic problem of organizing / communication strategy.

I think other ideological progressives should go on all media, too.  I say that because I think it is important to have solid progressive voices play offense in all media outlets when we are given a chance.

We are not a homogenous group.  A person who will be well received on, for example, Open Left, will not even be given a hearing on a different space.  While this may seem unfair, I think it's natural and can even be beneficial once we understand that if you in your mind put all the media institutions you can think of in a big circle and then start clumping them together by how closely together their worldviews are, you can get a sense of how different messages will reverberate in different spaces (and more broadly what the incipient movement might look like).  Another way to put it is that what Jeremiah Wright can say in his church is different from what Barack Obama can say in a Presidential election.  

So the question comes again to the specifities of who is talking, what they are trying to accomplish, and whether they were able to accomplish it.  Some people will be better at some things and other people will be better at other things - what is offense for some is off-agenda for others, etc.  Embracing this breadth of ideological opinions and how best to push for the places where we can agree is important - which is also why it's important to respect when people feel alienated by something one might do or not do and initiate a conversation about it (thanks for doing that here, though I think it could have been a bit less defensive...see last paragraph).

[ Parent ]
Mere talk doesn't get progressive politics implemented - (0.00 / 0)
elected progressive politicians do!
Sry, but imho you got your priorities all screwed up.
It's certainly nice to get attention as a pundit, and people listening to your views. But if this actually helps the opponents of progressive politics to oppress those policies, it's a serious blunder!
So, what you do doesn't really help "the movement", if by this "movement" you mean progressives in general and not only David Sirota.  
[ Parent ]
what you said on fox (4.00 / 7)
was hardly an endorsement of progressive values (I just watched the clip.) It didn't even discuss them. It was rather a bunch of speculation about the "showbiz" of politics.

So, for example, when you said that Biden might "undermine" the change message of Obama, you didn't have anything to say about Joe's politics (e.g., the bankruptcy bill.) You talked about Joe's "picture."

Instead of, as you claim, criticising Obama from a progressive standpoint, you just did a little horserace analysis and came up with the standard MSM narrative (i.e., Obama's "change" message is just that, a message.)

It's hilarious to compare you with the GOP guy; he knows how to play the game on TV (had that great sound bite) and was an effective advocate for McCain. You don't have to be a shill for Obama, but you should turn down a speaking gig if that's what's needed.

GOP guy: McCain rocks!
You: Biden is not very very very bad.

Exactly (2.00 / 2)
Biden is not very bad, but not great. That's an honest opinion. If you disagree, that's your right. If you think everyone who goes on any media should be a parrot who says "Biden Good, McCain Bad" then you suffer from a severe case of Partisan War Syndrome.

I tell the truth - Joe Biden is fine. He's gaffe-prone, he's not particularly progressive, he voted for the Iraq War, but he'll go after McCain by pointing out that McCain has changed. Disagree with me - fine. But ask me to lie? Sorry - you got the wrong guy.

[ Parent ]
look (4.00 / 7)
You said absolutely nothing of substance in the clip and you advocated not a single progressive issue. You may have been saying what you believed (Obama's "change" message is a bit fake and mostly about image), but you couldn't put it in a progressive context and so you ended up inside a right-wing frame.

Literally!

I am glad you do not lie. In situations where you have a choice between:

1. lying
2. repeating right-wing talking points
3. not going on Fox news

I suggest you take option three.

[ Parent ]
McCain (2.40 / 5)
If you don't think pointing out McCain's change from the McCain of 2000 to the current McCain has anything to do with a progressive message, then I respectfully advise you to return to the Planet Earth.

'Nuff said.

[ Parent ]
FTW (4.00 / 1)
I can not lie: I respectfully advise you return to Planet Earth to be treated for Annoying Internet Cliche Rhetoric Syndrome? You angry, jealous person?

'Nuff said.

PS: I respect your opinion.

[ Parent ]
Like McCain the war critic? (0.00 / 0)
Anyway, so, do you think the netroots was wrong to keep the prez candidates off of Fox?  
[ Parent ]
Excuse me pls... (0.00 / 0)
...but I seem to be a bit slow in the brain today. WTF has "McCain's change from the McCain of 2000 to the current McCain" to do with any progressive maeesage? You're arguing that progressive messages changed McCain? Uh, to say it politely, that is, hmm, farfetched...
[ Parent ]
Thing is many of us think we ARE in a partisan war (4.00 / 4)
The Repubs definitely do. Which is why they tend to win elections.
[ Parent ]
I don't disagree with any of that (4.00 / 3)
but the venue question is still appropriate.

If you made those points on a show where you were debating a starry-eyed Obama partisan that would be unobjectionable (Imagine, a debate between a liberal and a leftist on primetime tv. Nice dream).

That is different from making the exact same points on a show on Fox where your opponent is a give-no-quarter McCain attack dog.  In that setting you DO come off looking a bit like Allen Colmes vis a vis Sean Hannity.

Look. we'd all love to say exactly what we think at all times, but when you go on mass media you have to also think about the effects.



sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Gaffe-Prone (0.00 / 0)
"Gaffe-prone"?  Really?  

Have you been paying any attention to the clown who has occupied the White House for the past eight years?

Have you been watching the current campaign where John McCain lays a golden gaffe on a daily basis?

I understand that part of the media narrative on Joe Biden is that he's "gaffe-prone" or a "gaffe-machine", but I get a little suspicious whenever I hear the same talking-heads blindly repeating the same mantra.  It does seem rather odd considering the overwhelming number of gaffes coming from those on other side of the aisle.  


[ Parent ]
This is a more substantive critique (4.00 / 7)
than the idea that one should never appear on Fox.

The question is, should progressives criticize Obama from the left on Fox?  Does it really advance progressive politics, or does it give the right new arguments they can advance dishonestly?  That's an issue of tactics and I do think David dismisses it sort of cavalierly.

There's a long-term view and a short-term view.  I don't watch enough Fox to know whether they let any Obama partisans on there.  It could be a tactical move by Fox to put progressives who present a nuanced view of Obama, such as you do, up against McCain attack dogs.  If so, then it puts you in a tricky position, David.  

I've watched the clip, David, and while I'm not as negative as some here I understand their point of view as well.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
short answer? (0.00 / 0)
I very much doubt that Fox will ever give airtime to articulate a substantive, progressive critique of the Democratic party. Someone may go on and try to make one (that is I believe David's claim), but the format and the opponents mean that it will end up as re-enforcing right-wing views.
[ Parent ]
I wish I didn't agree with this. (4.00 / 4)
I think in an ideal world, a progressive being on Fox News and criticizing a Democrat would send a message to conservative viewers that "libruls" are not mindless ideologues but intellectually honest, well-intentioned people with a point of view that deserves respect and a fair hearing by other intellectually honest people. It would make them look at their own leaders and pundits and expect more of that honesty from them. Which would ultimately lead to dialogue and understanding between the two camps, instead of merely shouting past each other.

This rarely actually happens, however, on either side of the fence. When a Republican says something we agree with, or criticizes another Republican, we tend to gloat more often than we reflect upon the honesty of that Republican. In this highly polarized atmosphere, there simply isn't that much to gain from intellectual honesty, except of course preserving your own integrity.

So while I admire David Sirota for his own integrity and tenacity in sticking to his honest opinions and personal code, I also have to agree that his honesty is probably lost on 90% of his Fox News audience. Maybe it's worth it, though, to reach that 10% who recognize David for the truth-teller he is. If he doesn't do that reaching out, and nobody else will, either, then who or what will?

[ Parent ]
I wish I didn't agree with myself on this too, (0.00 / 0)
Well put.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
Jealous. jealous of your success, that is what this about. (4.00 / 6)
I am ashamed of my silly selfish reasons for criticizing you.

And what we all do here is lie, cause we 're jealous. See that was lie right there.

And bitter.

I lie all day long because I'm bitter. Bitter about putting someone in the white house that cares at the very least about democracy. Or the wage of an average American.

Yes you are smarter and better connected than all of us. And calmer, and not subject to emotional outbursts.

But at least I'm not important.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

I am not a big Sirota fan (4.00 / 8)
because his endless self-promotion gets tiresome.

As best I can tell, however, he stands for progressive values. I don't question his character. And, I don't consider an appearance on Fox and act of treason -- unless one becomes a regular which works to give them the sheen of objectivity.

I didn't find his appearance in the clip particularly effective in advancing progressive or Democratic values but he wasn't a turncoat, either. After the break he said something like Biden was a "solid" pick...or maybe he said "safe" pick. It was basically a Alan "Washington General's" Colmes type performance.

On Fox you are basically talking about a Republican viewership whose mind is made up.  I think it would have been more effective if he had said something like "Biden should appeal to your viewers because he has a ton of international experience, he has been a harsh critic of how this war has been conducted, he has been an advocate for soldiers and, in fact, his son is being deployed to Iraq."  

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


I am a Sirota fan. (4.00 / 1)
This is going to sound ridiculously kiss-ass-y, but I have total respect for David Sirota. I don't know how many places on the Intarwebs and print and TV David shows up in, but he is a perpetual motion machine that seemingly exists to fight for the progressive cause. If we could clone about 10,000 of him, creatures like Rove would be holed up in abandoned missile silos in Eastern Idaho instead of running the country.

That said, he is but one of (way too few but nevertheless) many soldiers in the cause, so I don't see why there needs to be such a kerfuffle over what the man wants to say or where he wants to say it. David Sirota is not singlehandedly destroying the Democratic party. I suspect that if he had that kind of power, he'd be too busy banishing GOP thugs to the Phantom Zone he willed into existence with his gigantic brain to appear on Fox News.

I happen to agree with a lot of what his critics here are saying, but I still think this is not worth the display of so much bile and negative energy. If the whole point is unity among progressives, shouldn't we start by doing away with the circular firing squad?

[ Parent ]
Appearing on Fox damages the progressive cause (4.00 / 3)
> I appear on Fox News whenever Fox News asks me to appear, and I think other ideological progressives should, too.

I disagree with this strategy.  Fox is a propaganda network designed to elect Republicans.  When progressives go on Fox, they simply legitimize the network, building up its credibility such that other media institutions and individuals have an increased chance of taking it seriously.

It is not possible to succeed in advancing the progressive cause by using a media apparatus specifically designed to work against you.  Fox controls the questions, the lighting, the seating, the microphone, the editing, the timing, the framing, the lead-in, the follow-up.  The network will always be evaluating your appearance against their core metric: does your appearance advance Fox's goal of electing right-wing Republicans?  If at some point the editorial staff at Fox judges that the net impact of your appearance no longer helps Murdoch's political agenda, you'll be booted from the network and won't be asked to appear in the future.  Every time they invite you back, they do it because it advances the mission of Fox.

It's a sucker's game for progressives to go on Fox, and it damages efforts to accurately tar the network for what it is: propaganda, not news.

I support the Wargames Thesis here: "The only winning move is not to play".  If we want to get a progressive message in front of non-progressives, there are ways to do it other than to continue to legitimize a major component of the enemy's noise machine.

The question really is (4.00 / 1)
would Fox have David on if he played the Obama attack dog in response to the McCain attack dog, as opposed to the reasonable progressive who calls em as he sees em, even if it hurts Obama somewhat?

If the answer is no, this is something David should think about and respond to.  But arguing that one should never appear on Fox doesn't put the issue to David as squarely as it might be put.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
David: (4.00 / 9)
I don't really want this to be personal, at all, as it has gotten with other commenters, and as it starts to get in your final paragraph.  I don't give a damn about your success or lack thereof, your wealth or lack thereof, etc.  I don't really care about your record of organizing, or about your books or whatever.  And I don't want to prove that I am better or worse than you for doing what I do.  That isn't what this is about.

This is strictly about strategy.  

Fox news is a partisan and ideologically driven outlet.  They don't like democrats and they don't like progressives.  More than that, they want to thwart both groups' agendas.  They choose their guests, and their show topics, based on the overriding goal of furthering conservative and Republican agendas.  

They, like the right in general, are cynical.  They are not purists in terms of who delivers the message that they are interested in delivering at any given moment.  If they want to trash anti-war activists, they would love to get a conservative dem to do it for them.  If they want to trash the democratic VP nominee, they would love to get a progressive activist to do it for them.  Hence, they invited you on the show.  

You got used to further a particular agenda.  It may feel to you like you had an opening to push a progressive agenda 'between the cracks,' but your more spicy comments got drowned out in this segment because the whole point of the discussion was to trash Biden and Obama, and you basically did that.  

And don't try to make this about regional politics.  Fox news viewers aren't necessarily clustered in the mountain west.  They are on the coasts as well.  You weren't talking to your kinda-sorta conservative neighbors on the show, you were talking to hard-core republicans, who watch Fox news regularly in order to get their anti-Dem and anti-progressive fix.  And you helped provide them with their fix for the day.    

Well, we disagree (2.67 / 3)
Well, we'll just have to disagree. I think being on there and telling Sean Hannity off like I did last time, and going on this time and pointing out John McCain's change is worth it - and whether its me or someone else doing it, I think its worth it.

As Saul Alinsky said, we have to start with where the world is, not where we want it to be. The world has conservative media - we may not like that but that is the world we live in. If that conservative media gives us the chance to go on and use their airwaves to fight, then I think its worth taking them up on the offer and fighting.

[ Parent ]
When you legitimize it.... (4.00 / 2)
...you make it worse, and are actively working against the work of people on OpenLeft, Color of Change.

Fox News is a pathetic, racist propaganda machine.  You shouldn't legitimize it.

[ Parent ]
it's about the movement? (4.00 / 4)
Well, movements demand discipline. And your comments on Fox were not helpful.  
Really? (0.00 / 1)
Pointing out that John McCain is surrounded by lobbyists, wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years, and has changed since 2000 doesn't mean anything?

Wow.

[ Parent ]
going on Fox and equivocating (4.00 / 7)
about Biden was not helpful.

Of course, progressives should be critical. The talent, however, is in knowing when to be critical and when to be disciplined.  

[ Parent ]
They were good points. More please. (4.00 / 2)
The bad was attacking Obama. The Repubs never criticize McCain now he is the nominee even though I imagine most of their talking heads don't like that fact. That is the angle from which most posters on here are coming from.
[ Parent ]
Right - its partisan (0.00 / 1)
Right, lots of people want only partisan voices. I'll just never be that. That's just not who I am, or what I am about. I try to be an ideologically progressive voice - sometimes that comes into conflict with shilling only for Democrats.
[ Parent ]
When going up against a vicious Republican shill (4.00 / 3)
on Fox or anywhere - you should think about what approach you take.  Saying exactly what you think may be playing into the other side's hands.  You need to think about that issue.  It's a different world than your books.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
David damn it. We looked at the clip, (4.00 / 4)
 we read your post, we criticized you.

Some by getting angry, others by being sarcastic, some by being polite, but no one really defended your action, and all here have at least a smidgen of progressive history between us. I am trying to write a diary about a point Paul made on another thread, he skewered me well, and now I have to make my point differently and admit where my emotional recollection got the better of me on timeline.

I am writing it not to better paul, or prove how I was right and he wrong, but because the points are worth making and the discussion is worth having.  When I said:

shit dude.

Can we all try and make our criticism useful to our goals please.


I meant it. I meant it because you have a real brain and good heart and an analysis we can all benefit from and you here on the line with us: not just writing, not just being right, not just telling the truth, but trying to accomplish a set of goals. The primary goals are: engage Americans in finding out what the hell is going on, engage citizens in running their country and alter the people who have the right to make decisions in Washington. In no particular order.

I have written elsewhere, that at a baseball game there is plenty of criticism, from the stands and in the dugout. The stuff in the stands is generally the loudest but totally worthless and in the dugout, unless the manager can get the best out of his or her players, s/he is a failure. The people in the stands want the team to win, the people in the dugout want it, but real critics want you to win the game and the season too.

My first reaction wasn't sarcastic, and I think I got sarcastic when you defended yourself... too ..too much? too angrily? I felt insulted anyway. Look: manage the team, don't call them losers.

Find ways to make the outcome of each of your actions something that moves this project forward, honestly of course, and makes the potential of the emerging progressive majority less potential and more actual.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

Recent History (4.00 / 2)
I don't get the sense that people are asking you to be a parrot, but are pointing out that you were/are being used as a tool by Fox to shape a negative opinion about the candidate that is far more friendly to our cause then the candidate Fox news is trying to help elect.

In context, I have a reaction to this that stems directly from 1999/2000. As a full throated Nader supporter while still living in Seattle, I know, KNOW, that the BS meme that Gore was only marginally better than Bush helped seal the deal for W. It certainly was not the primary narrative of the time, but   a lot of air was exhaled by the "movement" types at that time to make sure the Greens got some attention.

It is time for all of us to do what we can to put lefter leaning people in office, even if they are not perfect today. They are much better than the alternative and will lead to better candidates in the future. I know you know this and appreciate your work towards that goal.  

Laugh hard. Its a long ways to the bank.  

What bone are you picking, exactly? (0.00 / 0)
Are you taking issue with the proposition that Gore was only marginally better than Bush? Or are you accepting that it was true, and nonetheless taking issue with people who expressed it?

If it is the former, I don't see how the analogy is relevant. Did David say something false?

If it is the latter - why not place the blame where it really lies? If Gore's uber-centrism was a problem, maybe it would have behooved him to create some distance between himself and Bush during the campaign.  

[ Parent ]
Bones (4.00 / 2)
Even at the time, I think we pretty much knew better than to believe Gore and Bush were two peas in a pod. The priority was to build a movement around the Greens meanwhile sacrificing the election of a politician that in ours and any alternate universe would have been better than Bush.

The bone I'm picking is with "movement building" at the expense of generally acceptable candidates. David responded to  a post by saying:

In other words, my work is about a movement - not about a party.

Fine and dandy, but I'm hoping we don't make the same mistake again by undermining an acceptable candidate that, though not perfect, would still be light years better than McCain. Not looking for a hack or a parrot, but going on offense more rather than providing cover for their attacks is all I'm advocating.

Laugh hard. Its a long ways to the bank.  

[ Parent ]
seemed like a pretty decent appearance to me (0.00 / 0)
I've never gotten the argument that progressive should boycott fox news for being conservative.  RNs have appeared on fox news from time to time, and used the time to educate and advocate for guaranteed, single-payer healthcare (even if they did so sometimes against the will of the host).  Isn't that a good thing?  

Join the California Nurses Association and National Nurses Organizing Committee in the fight for guaranteed healthcare on the single-payer model at www.GuaranteedHealthcare.org/blog
Progressives being on the offense is one thing (4.00 / 3)
You were not on the offense for much in that clip, so there's a difference. There is only person who I have ever seen go on FOX News and kick ass, and that is Bill Clinton. The game is fixed. They were leading you to criticize him, and you fell for it.

I don't believe any conservatives were swayed by your progressive "message" today.

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter

Sounds like you missed .. (0.00 / 0)
Wes Clark .. when he used to be on Faux
[ Parent ]
Yada yada. (4.00 / 1)
..................................................
"That said, I'm not going to be a partisan shill, simply saying "Obama Good, McCain Bad" all day like a parrot. I'm going to give my honest assessment from a progressive perspective - because in this world you really only have two things: 1) Your family and 2) Your credibility."
..................................................

I used to be a big fan of yours. Then you moved to Montana to work for "Albert" and started promoting bullshit like clean coal and the big laugher, testing Canadian beef for mad cow precursors. And of course, only Canadian beef and not American beef. Two blunt shill memes that do nothing other than push terrible policies that "Albert" was pushing at the time.

This was after your complete silence on Sherrod Brown's vote for the MCA, a disgusting act by someone who was supposed to be a champion of average Americans. I think it was at that point you started referring to Brown as an "economic populist," as if his only concern was prices at the supermarket and not the constitution and "freedom" as something other than a phony sound bite.

I've ignored you since the beef and coal days and I would have continued ignoring you but after reading the above quote I found myself gagging. You're a media whore. You make Greg Palast seem like a shy self effacing guy who never tries to draw attention to himself. But Palast holds to progressive values. I'm shocked that this post doesn't have a graphic of a book cover you're trying to post. So, though your words often do have a populist and progressive ring to them, "your credibility" is zero. Your going on Fox News was news to me, but I'm certainly not surprised. Don't paint them as a sign of integrity and spreading the good word. You're just getting your face on camera or voice on tape anywhere you can find the opportunity. Nothing more.

I've had an epiphany (4.00 / 1)
David, I have to agree with you.  I wouldn't have six months ago, but it was an economic analogy that brought me around.

It occurred to me that TV airtime is a finite resource. In TV, you get, what, 23 minutes of viewable time in a half hour?  If we don't show up, they use those full 23 minutes to attack us.

The argument against going on Fox, or any other right wing media outlet, is that they will use the opportunity to provide fodder for their attacks.  News flash, people:  They are already doing that, and whether someone for our side is there in person, or in absentia, that is what they are going to spend their time doing anyway.

So the arguments in favor of showing up and accepting every opportunity to appear on Fox, or wherever, are two, and I really think they are irrefutable:

1) Every minute of their air time we take up with our presence and our own arguments is another minute they don't get to make their points. Keep repeating it to yourself: TV time is a finite resource.  Once consumed, it can't be recovered.  If we use theirs, they don't get it back.  If we don't make a good argument, or don't win the argument, we are at least running out the clock as much as possible.

2) The conventional wisdom against appearing on right-wing media shows is that by appearing on their programs, we give them fodder with which to create attacks of greater quality.  But I think the converse is true.  In my mind, it is much, much easier to demonize an opponent who is not there.  You can attack the idea of the opponent far easier than you can attack the real thing.  A flesh and blood human being poses a much harder target than a straw man.

I'm with you, David.  We should show up as often as we are invited, and perhaps even go proactive and demand air time.

Its really very simple. (4.00 / 3)
I'm generally fine with progressives on Fox News so long as they do a good job and don't attack Democrats unless it is very clearly from the left.

But you didn't do that. Eventually you got to say some decent things about Iraq (but guess what, the other guy got that last word! Why? Cause its Fox News!). Here's the thing you really weren't brought on that bit for brilliant thought out Sirota political analysis. You were on to debate with the Republican. Instead, though you had different reasons, you agreed with the Republican about whether or not Biden was a good VEEP. Now I can respect that you don't want to act enthusiastic about Biden when you're not. But in that situation the answer is to politely turn down the tv offer and recomend to Fox another articulate progressive who supports Biden.

Re: Partisan War Syndrome... No one is suggesting that we have to constantly compromise on ideology for the sake of the Democratic Party. BUT 1. Your critique of Biden WASN'T ideological. 2. When you're on a show like that AGAINST a Republican you are in a PARTISAN BATTLE. Act like it. If we don't play that game we lose.

And I'll have you know I've never said a bad word about Olberman or Maddow. Yeah, you're the first thats ever pissed me off.

You took away the slot of a better Dem promoter (4.00 / 3)
See it that way, David: Another Dem pundit would have done a much better job at attacking McCain and the republican side of the debate. Maybe he wouldn't have been as honest as you, maybe he wouldn't been as progressive as you, and certainly he wouldn't criticized the Obama campaign as much as you. But he would have done a better job in reaching out to republicans and showing them reasons to vote for Obama, which was the reason you gave us for going to Fox.

I mean, washing dirty laundry, discussing doubts about Biden or the problems of the campaign is ok here, or at other liberal blogs, where it's a discussion among liberals. Maybe some right wing lurkers are spying here, but hardly any average republican voter will come here. But when taking one of the rare chances to spread the liberal word from the lion's den, criticism of the Dem campaign wasn't leading to the desired results. I understand you were in a conflict of interest: You wanted to be both honest and promoting progressive policies. Obviously, those are different goals, and it was impossible for you to reach both. But regarding the important mission of preventing a McCain presidency, it would have been much better to put a higher emphasis on the second goal. This doesn't say you should have been dishonest, but you could have easily avoided the points where you have honest doubts and concentrate on the positive part of the message. It's just a matter of laying the emphasis on the right points.

Really, another pundit may have thought much less about himself and his own doubts, and much more about making effective points that can influence republican voters. This would have been better for the dem party and for Obama's chances. You took away that chance, and didn't deliver a convincing result. Imho, if you think it's more important to educate TV viewers about your personal views, instead of the important points that distinguish Obama from McCain, it would be better for the Dem chances in November if you would abstain from appearing at such debates. Just my personal opinion, and pls excuse me for being so frank.  

I agree 100% with your comment (0.00 / 0)
It's as if David forgot he was debating a republican.  Did he get all flustered that he was "on TV"; so he lowered his guard, had no counter, thus got creamed by the other side.  The left doesn't need any defender like that. David needs to stay behind his keyboard.
[ Parent ]
Thx for the roses! (0.00 / 0)
But pls check also Jack's comment on the same issue in that other thread. Imho he makes the same point, but in a more precise and eloquent way:
"You're not there for David Sirota you're there to represent the Left. And Democrats who go on news networks in these formats have to play this game or we'll lose. And David, if you're not willing to do the job just don't go on. I understand that you don't want to act enthusiastic about a selection you don't like. But if thats the case you just DON'T GO ON TV. Its quite simple."
http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

Imho this really hits the nail!

[ Parent ]
Your performance should should earn you a gig filling in for Colmes (4.00 / 2)
It really was that pathetic.  On such a positive, big news day for the left (yes not just the Democrats), you decide to give a commentary on Fox that mirrors Fournier's piece for the AP.  

No wonder the readership on this blog is so low.  Folks that want to read your type of analysis need only go to TownHallor Redstate; there they willl get the real thing.

And BTW.. your lowsy excuse (I am a populist progressive) really reeks of post-coverup.  "Populist progressive"?  You may be progressive, but you are no populist in this interview; you just looked petty with an axe to grind.

Why Boycott Faux News (0.00 / 0)
David,

Clearly you do not think the strategy of progressives not appearing on Faux News makes sense.

This is s agood point for debate - especially on OpenLeft.  Do you basically believe that pushing Dems not to have a debate on Faux News was wrong?  Do you believe the strategy pursued my the vast majority of netroots to basically boycott Faux News is wrong?  

If so, I'd like to hear your idea about why deligitimizing a propaganda piece, which duiring the early 2000's was the agenda setter (affecting news media across the spectrum) is a bad idea.  We on the progressive part of the landsacape have spent a lot of our energy clarifying that Faux News was exactaly that - Faux News.  And it took a lot of entergy on our end to convince party Democrats to acknowledge that reality.  Maybe you think that was silly.  If so, please more explicitly say that. And if you believe that, please explain how you would (not as an individual but as as part of a progressive MOVEMENT) deal with mouthpieces of right wing propaganda, where there is a collective PICKET LINE around Faux News.  

And consider reflecting on the point of why so many progressives feel betrayed (not just upset, but betrayed) by your participation on Faux News.  One response is because we are simply misguided, or that we are mindless shills.  But given the fact that we do are critical, self-aware members of the progressive movement who are concerned about building and fighting for different kind of institutions, maybe you can explain your ideas better.

Looking forward to a more analytic response from you.

Best,

-AD in Oaklnad

Keep up the good work. (0.00 / 0)
Regardless of whether I agree with every position of yours (and, for the most part, I do -- including appearing on Fox), I read with interest all your posts and deeply appreciate all the work you put into your writing.  Thank you, and I hope you return from your vacation invigorated for the final push up to November.  

I'll now return to my lurker status ... but it seemed worth bestirring myself to counter the negativity-bias all voluntary polls incur.  Keep up the good work, and remember that your job isn't to convince everyone, just the reasonable folks.

something (4.00 / 1)
What you seem to be missing is this: Fox News is using you.  They are using you and laughing at you.  The ONLY way they let leftists/liberals on their network is if said leftists/liberals reinforce the whiny, ignorant, limp-wristed, ineffectual, out-of-touch, or whatever other anti-left-cliche-you-can-come-up-with characterization that lets their viewers smugly shake their heads and say, "Ugh, I hate those liberals."  Do you really think they're interested in furthering nuanced debate, or conceding points of agreement between the two sides, or showing that actually, there are MORE than two sides to political arguments at all?  Really?  No.  They use brave commentators such as yourself to further the image they want to purvey of "libruls" who will, among other things, let right wingers bully them into sorta kinda agreeing with the right-wing talking points.  Which, in their minds, only proves their point: Liberals stand for nothing, and don't have enough backbone to be in charge of this country.  And then they just become all the more smug and all the more bullying.  

"We" may not see ourselves as united, be we Democrats or leftists or progressives or whatever, but Fox has certainly demonized "us" enough that we look like one solid entity to the folks looking for any and all reasons to vilify us.  Don't give them ammunition for it.  Please.  Believe me, my family is a bunch of Fox-watching, LimbaughSavageHannity-listening right-wing nutjobs, and the things they truly believe about those on the left is disturbing enough without us helping to reinforce them.

Though it hurts to find out you're the brunt of a joke, especially when your motives are pure and sincere as trying to put forth a progressive message to the toughest of audiences, that doesn't mean you should stop putting yourself out there altogether.  Just choose your arena better, and don't let Fox use and abuse you.  Your message can certainly go farther in places that are not completely inhospitable to reason.

You owe it to yourself to listen to This American Life's fantastic and common-sense explanation of the economic crisis.

late to this discussion, but... (0.00 / 0)
Two arguments are being thrown around, here, that are worth pulling out and considering closer.  The first argument is 'legitimization" (e.g., '...by being on FOX, a progressive activists legitimizes conservative propaganda...').  That argument is the worst kind of lazy pseudo-Marxist nonsense.  FOX does not need legitimacy. It's like a vegetarian accusing someone of legitimizing McDonald's by eating there--ridiculous.  FOX operates on the conviction that it is a 'fair and balanced' news organization,  and so they go out and get people who they say are liberals to voice the 'other side' of  a supposed debate. I don't agree with FOX, but they don't need legitimization. If David didn't go, they would find someone else.  FOX News is a successful brand; their producers work hard.  It's legit in enough people's eyes.  They're not looking for that.

The second point is about 'honesty'--that if one goes on FOX and voices one's 'honest' opinion, then it constitutes a free-standing good thing.  The problem with this argument is that, whether the conclusion is true or not depends on a vast array of structural factors well beyond individual control.  It's crafted out of the same kind of logic as the photo of the lone Chinese protester facing down a line of tanks in Tianemen square.  It makes for a great story, but in reality--the guy was put in jail, the tanks kept rolling, the 'story' was not changed by one voice.   In general when progressives do a FOX News spot, the producers rig everything so that it seems like the progressive is saying re-enforcing a conservative big story.  With that dynamic in mind, the question of whether or not to do a FOX spot becomes almost ludicrously philosophical:  Is it possible for an honest voice to get through to the public through a media outlet that is fundamentally dishonest?  Well...sure.  And it's also possible to keep an ice cube from melting when placed on the hood of a car at noon on a hot August day in the middle of Death Valley.  But logic dictates that the opposite is more likely to happen.

So, on the one hand, here, we have a ridiculously lame argument about 'legitimization' being used to describe a well-established broadcast corporation that is not seeking legitimacy.  On the other hand, we have a claim that an individual has the power qua an individual to overcome all the structural barriers at FOX and get an 'honest' message out directly to the people.  So what is the reality, here?

I think the reality is that a progressive's spot(s) on FOX probably does little more than introduce that progressive to viewers who are trapped inside the bubble of right-wing media, and who would otherwise have no clue who he or she is--and as a result of now being a familiar face, that progressive has the potential to become an opinion maker amongst a certain, small segment of the FOX audience.  It is unlikely, however, that this will happen in the span of one spot or 5 or even 10.  But--and this is a big what-if--should the progressive make a choice to become a regular on FOX, then it is more likely (although far from inevitable) that he/she could have an impact on people's thinking that benefits the larger effort to advance progressive goals.  That much being said, FOX producers are not stupid, they judiciously protect the brand from internal critics, and at the very appearance in viewer marketing research of a progressive voice becoming influential, they would likely bump him/her or undermine him/her.  And so we are be back to square one.

Therefore, of the half a dozen times FOX has contacted me, I've always said 'no thanks' and not worried about it.  There is always another media spot--always another chance to amplify one's message via broadcast.  As such, I  have not seen accepting the invitation from FOX (yet) as a necessary evil--for me. And I leave others to judge for themselves.

A Note On Media | 72 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox