Democrats won't debate on Fox News. They'd stand a better chance in 2020 if they did.

[brooklynite]

Washington Post

One common misconception about Fox News is that it’s filled with wall-to-wall programming and personalities boosting Trump and his every utterance — a frequent charge of the network’s critics. True, some hosts, such as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, support the president and do not hide it. But these are the proprietors of opinion programs, and they are no different from opinion columnists like The Washington Post’s Paul Waldman and the New York Times’ Charles Blow, or MSNBC’s Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow. On the news side at Fox, several anchors refuse to toe the Trump line and remain devoted to solid reporting of stories and discussion of issues. (Full disclosure: I am an occasional guest on news and opinion shows on Fox News and Fox Business, and I am not compensated for these appearances.)

There is an immediate, highly relevant historical example here: the third and final presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in October 2016. Fox News’s Chris Wallace hosted it, and figures from the left and the right cheered his work. The New Yorker’s television critic, Emily Nussbaum, tweeted: “Gotta say, Chris Wallace is a pro. Cool demeanor, asking clear follow-ups,” while the New York Times wrote that Wallace “mixed humor with scolding and persistence with patience to guide his charges toward the most substantive encounter of an unusually vicious election.”

Lower-profile and lower-stakes coverage follows basic journalistic principles, too. Harris Faulkner earned praise from Slate, a frequent Fox News antagonist, for a segment discussing gun policy that she moderated in 2017 (note: I was one of the participants). Anchors Shepard Smith, Neil Cavuto, Dana Perino, Martha MacCallum, Bret Baier and others have also repeatedly received plaudits for their devotion to presenting the truth. Does the DNC think they have suddenly abandoned those values? (Mayer’s piece alleged that a Fox News reporter was told to kill a story about Trump’s affair with Stormy Daniels. Even if true, the executives who made the decision are no longer with Fox News.)

Further, since the 2016 election, Democrats have openly discussed their desire to win over Trump voters -- many of whom are Fox News viewers. According to Nielsen, the network’s viewers are 94 percent white and have a median age of 65: exactly the demographic in which Democrats will need to make headway in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio.

[empedocles]

1. Even if fox news continues its criminal tilting the debate practices?

[Turin_C3PO]

2. I think they should appear on Fox.

I know a few moderates in my personal life who watch Faux News all the time. They are persuadable, IMO, and there may be many more like them across the country.

Of course, I understand why Democrats would be reluctant, given how biased Fox is towards Trump. They should demand either Shepard Smith or Chris Wallace as the moderator.

[EarlG]

3. Counterpoint

Fox News is a pro-Trump propaganda network that peddles appalling conspiracy theories and Democrats shouldn’t treat it like a real news network because it isn’t one.

Folks like Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith et al should be embarrassed to work there. In fact, they should quit and stop doing the nation a disservice by continuing to grant Rupert Murdoch’s indoctrination channel an air of legitimacy.

IMO.

Edited to add: it’s not as if persuadable voters arent going to be able to catch the Democratic debates on any other news channel. If someone misses the debates (or the debate highlights) because they refuse to watch anything other than Fox News, I doubt that they are actually persuadable.

[2naSalit]

4. +1

[Iliyah]

8. I agree!

[forklift]

36. Yes .... and moreover

If and when any Fox audience changes channels to a real network, some of them may stay there and either not go back to Fox or keep watching both.

[Cha]

82. Your "counterpoint", EarlG, is

how I feel about it. And, you say it so Eloquently!

Don't give validity or normalization to the trump Propaganda Machine.

[LuvNewcastle]

5. Bullshit.

I can't say for sure what percentage of Fox viewers are hopeless, but the number is very high. There's no use in pretending that Fox will be fair. After all we've seen, any Democrats who want to feel guilty about not being 'fair' to Fox are nothing more than fools.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

6. Bernie will debate anywhere, anytime with his winning message!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[NurseJackie]

9. I just want to see the tax returns. Any progress being made there?

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

Never gonna happen.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

11. You will see Bernie's tax returns; as he said, just a few more things to do and they'll be released.

Of course, nothing President Sanders will ever do will be good enough for some.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[NurseJackie]

13. LOL!

just a few more things to do and they'll be released.

Delay, delay, delay. Excuse, excuse, excuse.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

14. Like I said... NOTHING will ever be good enough.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[NurseJackie]

18. It's my believe that as a nation, we are better served when candidates strive to EXCEED the minimum...

Like I said... NOTHING will ever be good enough.

It's my believe that as a nation, we are better served when candidates strive to EXCEED the minimum standards. It really serves no good purpose when any candidate relies on his (or her) followers to make excuses for not even coming close to simply MEETING the minimum standards.

All I'm saying is that we should always expect excellence from our politicians and from anyone who seeks national office. We are stronger when we set our expectations high, and when we demand honesty and transparency. I'll never understand why anyone would want to settle for less, or why anyone would continually accept and enable someone's failure to meet basic standards.

It also makes no sense why anyone would want to ridicule or "demonize" those of us who DO have higher standards and expectations. It's laughable to make the accusation of "NOTHING will ever be good enough" when in reality, what people want and are demanding is honesty, integrity and transparency... no more excuses... no more delays.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

19. Nothing! Ever!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[NurseJackie]

20. Excuses and delays and avoidance will never be good enough.

19. Nothing! Ever!

Excuses and delays and avoidance will never be good enough.

What will most definitely be enough is releasing ten years of his and Jane's full and complete tax returns (not summaries). The American people deserve to have that type of transparency and honesty and integrity. We deserve to know what the conflicts of interest are, where the money is coming IN from, and where the money is being saved or invested.

This isn't too much to ask. It's perfectly reasonable.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

23. Thanks for proving my point... so predictable. Never enough if we're talking about Bernie!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[NurseJackie]

24. I've done no such thing and you know it.

23. Thanks for proving my point... so predictable.

I've done no such thing and you know it.

Never enough if we're talking about Bernie!

That's also untrue. Excuses and delays and avoidance will never be good enough. Why should anyone accept excuses and delays?

What will most definitely be enough is releasing ten years of his and Jane's full and complete tax returns (not summaries). The American people deserve to have that type of transparency and honesty and integrity.

We deserve to know what the conflicts of interest are, where the money is coming IN from, and where the money is being saved or invested.

This isn't too much to ask. It's perfectly reasonable. Yet all we get are excuses and delays. Why is that?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

42. You proved it again...thanks! I believe Bernie that he'll release his returns soon enough...

but, of course, that won't be good enough... go ahead, say it again!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[NurseJackie]

44. He'll have to release them for it to be "good enough".

believe Bernie that he'll release his returns soon enough...

He'll have to release them for it to be "good enough".

that won't be good enough... go ahead, say it again!!

Gladly! Happily! Loudly! Repeatedly!

Here goes... listen up! He keeps making excuse after excuse and we have delay after delay. THAT is "not good enough". The lame EXCUSES are "not good enough" and completely unacceptable for anyone who wants to be the leader of this nation.

I have higher standards. I won't settle for delays and excuses. I won't enable those who want to hide their tax returns. Instead, I'll continue to point out the promise made but never kept. I'll continue to remind everyone that broken promises and absurd delays are "not good enough". They never were, and they never will be.

Here's the thing... We deserve full and complete transparency from all of our candidates. That includes Bernie. No more excuses. No more delays.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

49. I get it... but then he'll release his returns well before the first vote

and THAT won't be good enough either. Anything to criticize Bernie... I get it!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[NurseJackie]

57. I doubt it.

but then he'll release his returns well before the first vote

I doubt it. If he hasn't released them by now already, then he's NEVER going to release them. All he (they) need to do is release them. No more excuses. No more dilly-dallying. No more delays.

Here's the thing... if they were complete enough to file with the IRS, then they're complete enough to release to the public. There's nothing else he needs to do, nothing to fix (unless there's something to hide).

Anything to criticize Bernie... I get it!

He should stop doing things like withholding and delaying the release of his (their) complete tax returns for the past ten years. It's really not such a difficult thing to do. If he's grown weary of the criticism, then he should just go ahead and release them. If his fans and followers dislike the criticism, then they too should join the chorus of voices demanding for their release.

Keeping them hidden is NOT GOOD ENOUGH! What are he and Jane afraid of? Why not be honest with the American people? Why not keep the promise that was made long ago?

All I'm saying is that it simply serves no good purpose for he and Jane to be this way. It only arouses suspicions and distrust. It creates divisions between those who are in favor or transparency and honesty and those who want to make excuses for him at all costs.

I'm one of the ones who's in favor of transparency and honesty.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

60. No, you STILL don't get it... AFTER Berneie complies with your demand, THAT won't be good enough!!

Just like Bernie joining the Democratic Party... that wasn't good enough either after he complied fully!! And, soon you'll have the last few years of tax returns since the last election, along with others... before the first vote is cast. Every wish will be granted, Bernie again will be in full compliance... but, alas, it's Bernie, so that too won't be good enough!! I get it!!

It's really okay though... it'll all be "water under the bridge" once President Sanders takes the oath of office and undoes all the Nazi policies from that disaster now occupying the White House!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[NurseJackie]

62. Except for the fact that he hasn't "complied fully".

Just like Bernie joining the Democratic Party... that wasn't good enough either after he complied fully!!

Except for the fact that he hasn't "complied fully". He most certainly has NOT "joined the Democratic party".

If he'd actually "complied fully" then his web page would say "Bernie Sanders (D)" (but it doesn't) and his wiki page would say "Democrat" (it doesn't) and he wouldn't have registered as an "Independent" to run for his senate seat again.

Do you think I'm stupid? I have eyes. I can read.

And, soon you'll have the last few years of tax returns since the last election, along with others... before the first vote is cast.

Ten years. Not two years. Full tax returns, not summary pages. His AND Jane's. The American people deserve transparency, not secrecy.

What are they afraid of people finding out? Why the delays?

but, alas, it's Bernie, so that too won't be good enough!! I get it!!

It will only be "good enough" when he actually follows through. But he won't. I get it, too!

It's really okay though... it'll all be "water under the bridge"

Wishful thinking.

it'll all be "water under the bridge" once President Sanders takes the oath of office

That's never going to happen. He won't make it past Super Tuesday.

There are so many other qualified Democratic candidates who are so much better. Those are the only ones who are "good enough".

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

64. Oh, okay, so now you're saying "it WILL be good enough" when Bernie does follow through...

Then we agree... nice!! Wish everyone was as open-minded as you are. Have a great evening!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[NurseJackie]

66. But you and I both know that he won't comply.

"it WILL be good enough" when Bernie does follow through...

But you and I both know that he won't comply. Why pretend otherwise? He'll never in a million years become a member of the Democratic party. Everyone also knows that he if and Jane had any intention of being honest and forthcoming about their tax returns, they would have already released them. Instead... all we get are excuses and delays, more excuses and more delays.

Then we agree... nice!!

Oh brother! What a silly thing to say. No we don't agree. Nothing of the sort. He's NOT a Democrat. He HAS NOT changed his party affiliation. He has NOT released ten years of his (their) full and complete tax returns.

Wish everyone was as open-minded as you are.

So do I!

Have a great evening!!

Thanks!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

65. Oh, okay, so now you're saying "it WILL be good enough" when Bernie does follow through...

Then we agree... nice!! Wish everyone was as open-minded as you are. Have a great evening!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[NurseJackie]

67. But you and I both know that he won't comply.

"it WILL be good enough" when Bernie does follow through...

But you and I both know that he won't comply. Why pretend otherwise? He'll never in a million years become a member of the Democratic party. Everyone also knows that he if and Jane had any intention of being honest and forthcoming about their tax returns, they would have already released them. Instead... all we get are excuses and delays, more excuses and more delays.

Then we agree... nice!!

Oh brother! What a silly thing to say. No we don't agree. Nothing of the sort. He's NOT a Democrat. He HAS NOT changed his party affiliation. He has NOT released ten years of his (their) full and complete tax returns.

Wish everyone was as open-minded as you are.

So do I!

Have a great evening!!

Thanks!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

68. We don't agree? I thought you said it will be good enough if Bernie does follow through

and provide his tax returns. And I'm saying it should be good enough if Bernie provides his tax returns. It sure sounds like we're saying the same thing... where I come from, that means we AGREE!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[NurseJackie]

69. That will never happen. Never.

If someone had any intention of releasing them and making them public, they would have done so already.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

70. Yes, but at least we agree that IF Bernie DOES provide his tax returns, that'll be good enough.

We found common ground and I consider that a good thing. Why not just focus on the positive and leave it at that?!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Gothmog]

47. Where are these tax returns?

It is not hard to download these returns from the IRS

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

51. You'll get them soon enough... but, with Bernie, nothing will satisfy some.

A little longer to gather the last few years of recent tax returns won't kill anyone.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[NurseJackie]

63. This isn't 1968. Nobody believes that the "only copies" of the last ten years of tax returns are...

A little longer to gather the last few years of recent tax returns won't kill anyone.

This isn't 1968. Nobody believes that the "only copies" of the last ten years of tax returns are stowed away in some unmarked shoebox in the back of the closet or hidden away in a dusty attic.

There's a reason for the delay. It's very suspicious. We were promised the tax returns before, but it never happened. And now it's just delay after delay and excuse after excuse. Are they hiding something from the American people?

We deserve transparency. It's not too much to ask to see WHERE a politician receives money, and HOW it's being saved or invested... and that it's all being accounted for... and that taxes are being paid properly.

He really has no good reason to delay any longer.

[BannonsLiver]

34. What's funny is you think being predictable is a one way street.

[greymattermom]

76. My thought on the tax returns

Is that he and Jane both file as single because they are not legally married. Perhaps they once were, but the marriage tax forced them to get a divorce.

[NurseJackie]

78. Well now... that's a very interesting theory. It certainly makes sense.

Is that he and Jane both file as single because they are not legally married.

Well now... that's a very interesting theory. It certainly makes sense, and it deserves more discussion and exploration.

Here's the thing... if the tax returns were complete enough to submit to the IRS, then they are certainly complete enough to be made public. There's no "tweaking" or "polishing" or other "fine tuning" that needs to be done.

It's my firm belief that if Bernie and Jane truly intend to release their FULL (not summaries) tax returns for the past ten years, then they would have already done so. Whatever reason they may have for being so hesitant in the past has not changed... and if they haven't released them by now, then it's OBVIOUS that they have absolutely no intention of ever releasing them.

Initially, I had thought that there may have been some questionable investments, or off-shore hoarding that someone didn't want revealed. But I must admit that your theory about their having a "financially strategic" divorce is one that deserves consideration.

All I'm saying here is that the longer they delay, the MORE suspicion and distrust it creates. After promising them for such a long time, and not delivering on the promise, they run the risk of creating questions about honesty and integrity in the minds of voters.

[Me.]

80. Well Put Jackie

Just enough isn't good enough

[Gothmog]

81. When will these returns be released?

Link to tweet

?s=20

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

85. When they're released.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Gothmog]

84. Where are the tax returns

Link to tweet

[BannonsLiver]

33. That's not really fair

It takes a long time to print that out and maybe Jane is like me in that every time she sits down to print something she realizes the printer is out of ink.

[NurseJackie]

35. Someone should let her know that you can "print" to a PDF file...

she realizes the printer is out of ink.

LOL! Someone should let her know that you can "print" to a PDF file and email the file, or post it on a website... others can view it electronically (or others can PRINT IT THEMSELVES).

[BannonsLiver]

37. Oh lord, print to PDF?

Let’s not get her started down the road of trying to figure THAT out, we’ll never see the damned returns!

[awesomerwb1]

56. Won't happen.

But just keep in mind who you have discussions about BS with

If you thought trumpers were fanatical....

[NastyRiffraff]

29. Oh, that's funny

[mcar]

39. A few more things to do?

On taxes from several years ago? What could be possibly have to do?

[awesomerwb1]

58. Well.....how about staple them together?

Purchase folders for every year. Perhaps some paperclips. The toner. Band aids for all the paper cuts....Soooooo many things to do.

[George II]

43. What's to do? I presume the last several years have already been filed with the IRS.....

....they're "set".

It was good enough for some, maybe all, when other candidates released their income tax returns during the years that they ran, and some newcomers have already done so.

This isn't a new issue, anyone thinking about running in 2020 knew that there would be calls for released tax returns.

[susanna]

73. Gonna give you props for enthusiasm, IABS.

Though those tax returns are an absolute requirement for me.

[Tipperary]

77. I will bookmark this.

So I can see what you say when he never releases them.

[Gothmog]

79. What is your definition of soon?

Link to tweet

[forklift]

38. I agree .. there must be a valid excuse

a copier part broke down and it is on back order until August 2020.

As soon as the copier is fixed, the tax returns will be released.

[Hoyt]

7. Understand reasons for not doing it, just think it's better to educate ignorant white wingers in

all forums.

[patricia92243]

10. Agree

[Shell_Seas]

12. Even if they did...

do you really think anyone in Fox's audience would vote for someone with a (D) next to their name?

[brooklynite]

15. Consider the following analogy...

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2019, 12:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Elissa Slotkin is our successful candidate in MI-8, which includes a number of Red counties. When she said she was going to campaign in some of them, it was pointed that he predecessor had lost them by 90%. She said he goal was to lose them by 70%...every little bit helps.

[crazycatlady]

22. I have staffed candidates in red counties

And knocked on thousands of doors in them. I think a candidate going to and campaigning in a red county is different than a debate being aired on a channel that they know is going to mock every candidate and that most of your voters won't watch period. Why waste everyone's time?

And I fully agree with her (and you) about cutting margins in counties you know you won't win. That is how races are won.

[brooklynite]

25. Fox News hosted a Presidential debate between Clinton and Trump (Chris Wallace moderating)

How did they "mock" Clinton?

[crazycatlady]

16. Would the average Fox viewer even consider a Democrat?

In my circles, it is very well known that Fox is the propoganda arm of the RNC and gives the MAGAts and hate groups a platform. That is not going to win over the new demographics of the Democratic Party.

It is knowing your audience. LifeAlert does not advertise on a channel like MTV for this very reason.

Also, I would not put it past Fox to edit the footage before it airs and make the candidates look like idiots.

[stopbush]

17. Bullshit. Ds have realized that winning over tRump voters is a fool's errand.

The focus this time around is to run on the unabashed progressive agenda that won in 2018 and to turn out the base. Ds far outnumber Rs in this country - including among the so-called Is - and tRump’s support is non-existent past the 25-30% of the country that identifies as Rs.

By telling Fox to go fuck themselves, Ds are showing a spine, and THAT will speak volumes to an electorate that responds to political parties that stand for something.

I am so glad Ds have stopped listening to these “concerned” RWers.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

50. They're deplorable... why bother with that scum?!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[FoxNewsSucks]

21. While it's true that Shepard Smith

Chris Wallace or maybe even Bret Baier might do a decent job of moderating, it would still be framed as one gotcha question after another, not a real chance for each candidate to make their point. And as has been said, after the live debate was concluded, the rest of the network hacks will just edit things to manipulate it how they want.

I know a few Fox addicts. It is a waste of breath trying to change them. They are unbelievably gullible and susceptible to the brainwashing and propaganda on the Fox "news" Sewer. The hypocrisy and lies can be disproven right to their face and they don't care. So there if trying to reach the Fox audience is the point of having a Democratic debate there, don't bother. It can't be done.

It's scary, and a waste of time. The only reason to ever debate or confront a Fox addict is if there are other people around who overhear the bullshit they parrot. You'll never convince the tRumphumper, but at least the bystanders will hear something besides the bullshit.

[brooklynite]

26. Comment by future candidate Eric Swalwell...

Link to tweet

[SharonClark]

40. So silly, if they were open-minded they wouldn't watch FAUX.

Swalwell needs to work on his own family before he tries to convince the rest of the country to support him.

[Zambero]

27. Yes

The candidates should have a say in this. If anything was learned from the 2016 debacle, limiting message and exposure to a pre-selected and partial segment of the electorate should not be repeated.

[shanny]

28. No. Legitimizing a propaganda platform that aims to destroy the left is insane.

[unblock]

30. foxnews needs to be isolated and marginalized and dismissed as biased, fringe propaganda.

even if the article's main point is true and we're missing out on reaching some of the foxnews audience (the few who could somehow end up voting for a democrat even though they are so devoted to foxnews that they can't be bothered to flip a channel to see the democratic debates), the benefit of starting, finally, to chip away at the authority status foxnews has in the right-wing world vastly outweighs the narrow loss of audience.

foxnews is described as a news network, or a cable new network. sometimes it is called a conservative news network. these characterizations allow people to think it's a legitimate news source as opposed to a constantly lying, biased propaganda network with a political agenda.

it needs to be called out for what it is, ignored, treated as not worthy of important political events such as debates, etc.

the benefit in terms of getting people to leave the foxnews bubble and to scale back their outsized influence is far more important than trying to reach a small number of loyal foxnews viewers who somehow could be convinced to vote for a democrat based solely on seeing the democratic debates on foxnews.

[Vogon_Glory]

31. NO Debates on Fox. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

I vehemently oppose having our Democratic candidates debate each other or their Republican opponents on Fox. My opposition has less to do with my doubts as to our ability to reach potential voters through Fox than with the nature of Fox News itself.

Fox News has proven over and over and over again that it is not a news network but a highly partisan info-tainment organization dedicated to pushing right-Wing politicians and right-Wing political causes to benefit Rupert Murdoch’s and Newscorp’s bottom lines. It DOESN’T deserve to be treated as a news organization but a propaganda outlet and should be treated with the respect it REALLY deserves—NONE. No Democrat interested in winning elections and saving the country should deal with Faux Noise as a reliable, trustworthy news organization.

DON’T DEAL WITH FOX IF IT CAN BE AVOIDED!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

52. I'm with you!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

74. Agree 100%!!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[LiberalFighter]

32. The writer's opinion is worthless.

Writer of the opinion is Evan Siegfried.
Evan Siegfried, president of the public affairs firm Somm Consulting, is the author of "GOP GPS: How to Find the Millennials and Urban Voters the GOP Needs to Survive."


Also, Evan Siegfried is a Republican strategist, political commentator, and columnist. He regularly appears on Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, CNN, and other networks

[Gothmog]

46. The author of the OP is a gop strategist and I discount his views

[Andy823]

41. Any fox news viewer

That wants to watch the debates can do so my going to whatever channel has them on, it's really that simple.

[Gothmog]

45. It's time -- high time -- to take Fox News's destructive role in America seriously,

Link to tweet

But we never know what those standards might be. Unlike most news organizations, Fox News doesn’t seem to have a department in charge of ethics and standards, and it certainly doesn’t publish its guidelines as some do.

So, yes, Fox News can continue to function as something close to Trump TV. It can go on spreading disinformation.

But everyone ought to see it for what it is: Not a normal news organization with inevitable screw-ups, flaws and commercial interests, which sometimes fail to serve the public interest.

But a shameless propaganda outfit, which makes billions of dollars a year as it chips away at the core democratic values we ought to hold dear: truth, accountability and the rule of law.

[Gothmog]

48. In stiff-arming Fox News, Democrats get one big thing right

I agree with Greg Sargent https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/06/boycotting-fox-news-democrats-get-one-big-thing-right/?utm_term=.99b5c8895afe

But a key part of the motivation behind this decision is a recognition that Fox News is fundamentally in the business of spreading disinformation, as opposed to conservative reportage. And the recognition that as such, Fox is at the throbbing core of something that has become a major blight on American political life is correct and important.

Some reporters are complaining that Democrats are passing up a chance to reach voters they might otherwise not reach. One supposes this is at least a possibility. But this complaint, I think, also betrays an unwillingness on the part of many neutral journalists to acknowledge just how bad the disinformation asymmetry of this particular moment has gotten, and just how pernicious Fox’s particular contribution to it has grown.

Indeed, some of the most important revelations in the New Yorker go to this point. Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg recounts that he quit appearing on Fox, after a run-in with a host persuaded him that the network had mostly given up on treating Democratic surrogates as legitimate debate opponents, in part because such conduct pleased the White House. Rosenberg noted that the White House has become one of Fox’s “masters,” adding: “Fox is no longer conservative — it’s anti-democratic.”

[elleng]

53. 'Democrats have openly discussed their desire to win over Trump voters

-- many of whom are Fox News viewers. According to Nielsen, the network’s viewers are 94 percent white and have a median age of 65: exactly the demographic in which Democrats will need to make headway in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio.'

[VMA131Marine]

55. Ummmm! Isn't this the same demographic that is currently 95% for Trump

The Dems do not need to hold any of their Primary debates on Fox

[elleng]

59. 'exactly the demographic in which Democrats will need to make headway

in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio.'

Ignore it at our peril.

[Cha]

83. Nobody is "ignoring it". EarlG makes a much better

case than you do.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=17220

[Atticus]

54. This is the same flawed reasoning that considers Trump a normal human being. nt

[Blue_Tires]

61. The concerns of the Fox News/Fox Business Channel shill have been noted...

[Vogon_Glory]

75. +1 n/t

[kcr]

71. Wrong. Any gain would be negligible

and certainly wouldn't outweigh the harm of legitimizing Fox news.

[pressbox69]

72. Screw Fox News.

Their long history of lies and propaganda against Dem candidates cancels any reason to take them seriously.