Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Fair, balanced, and avoided

There are a lot of things that FOXNews is, that's for certain. The television home of Bill O'Reilly and Neil Cavuto, for example. A regular venue for Ann Coulter to appear. A news channel willing, possibly even devoted, to covering every angle of a missing person's story with Greta Van Susteren. Claimants of the slogan "Fair & Balanced". And there is definitely more that FOXNews is.

One thing that FOXNews isn't, at least for the 2008 election, is home to debates for the Democrats. John Edwards led the way, but now Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have joined with Edwards in choosing not to appear on a FOXNews sponsored debate. Instead, the candidates will be debating on CNN, a "more appropriate venue", according to some within the Obama camp.

Now why could this possibly be? After all, FNC has made it very clear that they are fair and balanced in their coverage. They do remind us every chance that they get about their fairness. And they've had Democrats on the programs before (although in the FNC world, they are almost always referred to as "liberals", and the word is spoken as though it were far-worse than calling someone by a racial slur). Heck, even one of their hosts, Alan Colmes, pretends to be a Democrat more often than not. So why would Obama, Clinton, and Edwards decide to avoid appearing on the cable news network?

Could it possibly be because the powers that be at FOXNews have made a point of unabashedly embracing GDub and his policies, even going out of their way to ignore the fallacies containted therein? Is there a chance that proceeding to report on "news" that has been proven incorrect may have slightly damaged the credibility of the network? Could it be that the candidates have chosen not to give any extra viewers to a network that makes their political party and its policies into a sacrificial lamb, all in the sake of ratings?

It's also possible that the candidates aren't seeing the potential positives behind having their debate on FNC. For example, this could give Obama the chance once and for all to prove to FOXNews viewers that he's not Osama bin Laden, no matter what the network says (and, in FOX's defense, CNN made the gaffe, too). It could allow John Edwards to unite people under his banner, and showcase that even he thought John Kerry did a little too much waffling in 2004. And it could present Hillary Clinton with the chance to prove that she's just as feminine as Ann Coulter.

Besides, this is the supposed Democratic Party, and their presidential debates. How can they truly justify choosing not to appear for a debate on a television news network proven to side with the Republicans time and time again? How can they explain the sheer avoidance of any network that will take any of the footage from said debate and turn it into hour-long diatribes as to why they "hate America"?

Actually, the more we think about it, the more we think that there's a chance that the election of 2008 will be a new direction for politics. After all, choosing to avoid the school bully can be seen as intelligent, and that's something that's certainly been lacking from American politics as of late.

No comments: