Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Gutsy John Edwards Jettisons a Second Fox-Sponsored Debate

By Don Hazen, AlterNet. Posted April 7, 2007.


The Edwards campaign explains, "there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective."
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Showing striking leadership, presidential candidate John Edwards, encouraged by Black activists, Black bloggers and Jesse Jackson, dropped out of a scheduled debate for September to be sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and Fox News.

Edwards deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince explained to the AP, "there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective." The Edwards campaign went out of its way to point out that Edwards planned to participate in a CBC debate hosted by CNN. The Democratic National Committee has also come out in opposition to the Fox debates, excluding them from the six debates they plan to sanction.

Edwards previously ditched a Fox debate planned for Nevada that was sponsored by the Nevada Democratic party and others. With Edwards out and significant pressure from MoveOn and a gaggle of persistent bloggers, the Nevada Democratic party decided to abandon the Nevada event, causing all sorts of screaming from Fox mouthpieces.

It's been a bit of a mystery as to why the CBC Institute, an offshoot of the Congressional Black Caucus, went ahead with the debates in the face of powerful evidence underscoring Fox's negative attitudes about Black people.

An Afro American Newspapers Editorial, printed in Black papers around the nation, read: "What were they thinking? What possible justification could the Congressional Black Caucus Political Leadership Education Institute have for picking Fox News to partner with on an upcoming presidential debate? 'Fox News is not a "fair and balanced" source of information or political debate, and it has repeatedly proven itself hostile to the interests of Black Americans.

There were other strong voices challenging the CBC Institute: "Why should we be legitimizing a network that calls Black churches a cult, implies that Senator Barack Obama is a terrorist, and uses the solemn occasion of Coretta Scott King's funeral to call Black leaders 'racist,'" said James Rucker, head of ColorOfChange.org "The CBC Institute's decision to embrace FOX was shamefully out of step with most Black voters."

ColorOfChange.org -- an online citizens' lobby of 75,000 members dedicated to advocating for the interests of Black Americans -- launched a national letter writing campaign calling on the Congressional Black Caucus Institute to reject Fox as partner for their presidential debates.

Fox's smears against the Black community are compiled in Outfoxed director Robert Greenwald's new YouTube video called Fox Attacks: Black America -- which is located at www.FoxAttacks.com and has been viewed by over 250,000 people in three weeks.

The public reasoning for the deal between the CBC and Fox, was expressed by Congressman Bennie Thompson (D-MS), chair of the CBC Institute "as a leading organization dedicated to educating the public on issues of national policy, the CBC Institute is committed to presenting the presidential candidates to the broadest audience possible." Thompson added, "Our goal with each debate is to provide a platform that will allow voters to hear the positions of candidates from both political parties. Collaborating with FOX News provides an opportunity to take this presidential election to millions of households."

Perhaps the loyalty to Fox by the CBC, more than reaching those households, was connected to their role as a key funder of the CBC Institute. News Corp, Fox's parent, owned by Rupert Murdoch, has been a heavy funder of the CBC Institute According to filed reports, Fox News gave $10,000 to $24,999 to the CBC in 2005, while News Corp. gave an additional $15,000 to $29,000. Between 2003 and 2005, FNC and News Corp. donated $47,500 to $98,998.

In an parallel development, the blog

href="jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com">Jack and Jill Politics offers that Black America will in the end not being represented by the CBC Institute in presidential debates, but rather in this instance, but by Tavis Smiley. From Jack and Jill Politics:

"There's a whole other layer of activity here to consider. The reason the DNC is able to backslap the CBC's ill-considered partnership with racist "news" network Fox is because there is a rival Democratic debate being run through PBS with emerging black leader Tavis Smiley at the helm." ... PBS is a network accessible to all (as opposed to Fox on cable) The debates will take place at two historically black colleges bringing much appreciated attention and resources to these HBCU communities.

Tavis Smiley is leading the way to show there are plenty of other venues than Fox News for primary debates, and John Edwards is again showing some spine. Now it's up to the rest of the Democratic Candidates to follow his lead.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: fox news, cbc, debates, tavis smiley

Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Smart Decision
Posted by: rwa on Apr 7, 2007 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why anyone would go on air with a network known for cutting their guests mikes and slandering them with no opportunity for response is beyond me. In fact you have to wonder about the role that purported "progressives" are playing when they submit to such antics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Smart Decision Posted by: braxxian
Right...
Posted by: daniel1982 on Apr 7, 2007 9:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because the best strategy to win votes is to preach to the choir.

FOX News gets more viewers than all the other cable news networks. FOX News viewers are not all republicans - a lot of them (most actually) are moderates that can be swayed. Why would he just give that up?

Besides - speaking to a friendly audience is gutsy?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh yeah, you get it Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Oh yeah, you get it Posted by: daniel1982
» No. Posted by: justaguy
» RE: ight... Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: ight... Posted by: daniel1982
Ewards is a true Populist if there was ever one
Posted by: Swedish liberal on Apr 7, 2007 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of the presidential candidates on the Democrats I very much dislike John Edwards, he is an insincere hypocrite and populist if I saw one. I abhor ambulance chasing lawyers and Edwards is the cream of the crop, he and his fellow sharks is costing us billions and billions because of needless litigation. They have virtually undermined the whole medical profession, a large portion of the extremely fast rising costs in medicine is due to litigation and these ridiculous so called punitive damages. And is Edwards for Tort reform of course not, he and his lawyer buddies in congress makes billions from this poor state in of American jurisprudence.

Do not vote for Edwards, he is very dangerous man indeed for the future of American society.

To cater to ethnocentrism and racial division is really a stinker. Compared to Edwards FOX News is “Fair and Balanced”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You give Swedes a bad name. (nm) Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» RE: You give Swedes a bad name. (nm) Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Social Liberalism vs American Liberalism Posted by: Swedish liberal
» Tort Reform Posted by: CatDad
Daniel 1982...
Posted by: ~Fiona~ on Apr 7, 2007 10:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I disagree with you...

Personally, I "Like" John Edwards and have for some time. While I don't know enough about Barrak Obama to assess his leadership ability, I think he, like Edwards, seems to have the interests of "We the People" at heart instead of pandering to the people while sucking in big bucks from any corporate sponsor willing to invest in their future as a politicians with the expectancy of a "return" on their investment.

Even though it is unlikely at the moment, I would like to see Edwards as President and Obama as Vice President... Now, in my opinion, those to would be a "Dream Team"...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Daniel 1982... Posted by: daniel1982
» **grins** Posted by: ~Fiona~
» RE: **grins** Posted by: daniel1982
» Dear Mr. Guy... Posted by: ~Fiona~
Apparently Mr Swed...
Posted by: ~Fiona~ on Apr 7, 2007 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I am at odds with you as well...

**shruggs**

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just What America Needs - A Hyper-Wealthy Lawyer For President
Posted by: MAD on Apr 7, 2007 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America's rotting corpse is being scavenged by the top 1% in our kleptocratic utopia and what do Alterneters do? Get behind a hyper-wealthy trial lawyer who made bank by fucking people over AND raising medical costs in the process. Bravo Mr. Edwards!! Just curious - has anyone had a gander at Mr. Edward's net worth recently?

At least you can be assured that he'll work hard to give average Americans a slightly enhanced prescription benefit (20 cents off with 2 Cheerios proofs of purchase) or some other token, crumb-like pittance of a program like, oh I don't know, free blood pressure checks. Meanwhile his wife will be getting top notch treatment at Sloan Kettering or the Mayo Clinic. At least he had the balls to do the right thing and vote NO on the Iraq war - DOH!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Mad about you Posted by: famouspipeliner
» Famous BS'er? Posted by: MAD
» Madam, Posted by: famouspipeliner
blowhards on racisim again
Posted by: eosrk on Apr 7, 2007 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imus made a comment on the ncaa women's game, and all of a sudden all the black leaders suddendly come out.
Now, where are these same leaders when their own is being knocked out of the workforce by illegal immigrants!!
...you hear that, it's called silence!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: blowhards on racisim again Posted by: thinkverybig
John Edwards agains shows the leadership he will as President!
Posted by: phyllisg on Apr 7, 2007 2:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for this great artical!! JOHN EDWARDS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I WOULD EVEN CONSIDER VOTING FOR!!

Your artical was right-on!
Thanks Again!
Phyllisg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes! Posted by: mombot
Amen!
Posted by: The Populist on Apr 7, 2007 3:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards is a plutocrat! Hillary is plutocrat! Obama is a plutocrat! If we had our heads out of our asses Russ Feingold would be forced by us to run. He has been dead on right across the board!
Los Populistos

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Did Feingold consider running? Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: Did Feingold consider running? Posted by: dangerouslysane
Edwards is a corporate, militarist right-winger on Foreign Policy
Posted by: Earthian on Apr 7, 2007 5:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The progressive platform has three major categories for its policies: domestic policy, foreign policy and electoral/constitutional reform. Kucinich, Nader, The Green Party, and the Progressive Caucuses in the State Democratic Parties are largely in agreement.

Back to Edwards. George Lakoff points out that in reference to Iran, the Bush statement "all options are on the table" refers to threats of military force up to and including an attack with nuclear weapons. All three "top" Democratic Party candidates are saying the same illegal threat. (The UN Charter forbids threats of force.)

Here is a reference on Edwards and his illegal threat of nuclear war against Iran:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020407G.shtml

This illegal threat and those by the other two "top" candidates means they are each in the Bush camp on a complete disregard for international law, domination in the Mideast, and Bush's so called "global war on terror."

Iran has not violated the NPT. No evidence has been found that they are pursuing nuclear weapons. Yet we build more. And Bush supports Israel, Pakistan and India to build more outside of the treaty. And then *the Democratic Party candidates* threaten nuclear war against Iran for pursuing their "inalienable right" to commercial uses of nuclear power, including enrichment of uranium in a blatent act of nuclear bullying--a clear violation of Article 4 (2) of the UN Charter that prohibits threats of force.

So this article, by suggesting that Edwards is showing great leadership to stand up to Fox and its "right-wing" agenda implies that Edwards himself is not a candidate with a right-wing, corporate, militarist agenda. Yet he does have such an agenda on foreign policy, and obviously so--threats and domination over respect and cooperation through adherance to international laws.

On domestic policy, Edwards says he favors policies that help regular people and wants to help the poor. That's good.

On electoral/constitutional reform, Edwards is not progressive. He says nothing about abolishing private funds for elections; or for proportional representation in the House and Senate; or for an IRV popular election to replace the Electoral College.

So I urge readers to look into what constitutes progressive policies, and then look at what the candidates actually advocate. Kucinich, Nader and the Green Party advocate progressive policies. Looking only at mere posturing, or at personality issues and vague speeches is to miss what matters: the candidates' actual platform.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another blow to our self-respect
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Apr 7, 2007 7:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we supposed to pretend that CNN (inter alia) -- propaganda outlets for the business world -- don't also have an arbitrary objective? Of course my point is moot since the Democratic Party, just like the Republican Pary represents Big Business. (I favor voting for the Democrats at this time because they are more responsive to popular pressure than the alternative -- however, they too have a "right-wing agenda" in the sense that they too are opposed to progressive reforms that would hurt profits and undermine imperial power.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another blow to our self-respect Posted by: Swedish liberal
» Beep Posted by: famouspipeliner
Which member of the elite will be our master this time around?
Posted by: ateo on Apr 8, 2007 5:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You don't seem to get it. The elite are gang raping this country to death and you debate which of them you want to be in charge of it all.

The system is broken. It really is a "lesser of two evils" decision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Equal Opportunity.... Posted by: CatDad
not much money from Fox to CBC
Posted by: allthingslucid on Apr 9, 2007 3:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wouldn't consider a Fox News donation of $10,000 to be very much at all. More like a "drop in the bucket." Don't see why CBC would feel it necessary to provide a kickback to Fox for such a low amount of payola....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

John Edwards for President
Posted by: mombot on Apr 9, 2007 3:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He always makes me proud. Good descions so far. I like Obama, too, but Edwards has experience. I still like Hillary, but just not happy about her war stance (still seems too neocon for her own good), oh, but Bill would be a great First Lady (LOL). That Edwards isn't afraid to boycott fox "news" should be a signal to anyone else do do the same. He's leading the way!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ManipulationNation
Posted by: ManipulationNation on Apr 9, 2007 8:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To some, it may appear weak for Democratic candidates not to be willing to appear in a debate on Fox “News.” However, it is much, much weaker, to me, for a mega-company like Fox to hide behind lies like “fair and balanced” to try to make it appear legitimate. Fox wants to use a debate to further its political aim of generating as many votes for the Republican party as possible by helping them look good and making Democrats look bad. It does that by duping people into thinking that they provide news from an unbiased perspective. However, its lies mean that even with billions of dollars behind it, its positions are too weak to stand on their own merits. And Fox, as an organization, is simply too weak to stand up for honest positions and instead serves as an obsequious appendage of the Republican party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where are his guts exactly?
Posted by: jets_ya on Apr 11, 2007 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Showing up and confronting the Britt Humes of the world would have shown more guts. Attempting to diss DFox Noise this way, proves and solves nothing!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]