Fox-sponsored Dem debate is tanking [VIDEO]

By Evan Derkacz
Posted on March 9, 2007, Printed on December 1, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//49013/

If you hadn't actually watched Democrats systematically shoot holes into their feet for the past several years it might be difficult to understand why they'd let Fox News host one of their presidential debates in Nevada.

When the news that Nevada Dems had made the decision came to light, progressives were furious. Campaigns were launched; words were deployed.

Then, a couple of days ago, John Edwards said, Eh, I don't need to attend a Fox-hosted debate.

Yesterday, Harry Reid, suspected by some of being behind the decision, told bloggers: "I had nothing to do with choosing FOX," and "I don't like FOX News."

Indeed, according to Nevada Today, it was revealed that it was actually Tom Collins, the NV State Dem Chairman, who orchestrated the coverage.

Collins will not be returning as the party chair.

Also taking place yesterday was the bold refusal of PoliticsTV to partner with Fox for the debate. Fox had offered to give PTV the exclusive webcast rights to the debate, while claiming all reproduction rights for themselves.

PTV's Dan Manatt, noting the "supreme irony" in Fox's Roger Ailes receiving a First Amendment award recently, released both a written and video statement (above)

PoliticsTV.com has informed the Nevada Democratic Party that it cannot accept its invitation to webcast the August debate.

FOX News’ terms for PTV’s webcast are egregiously unfair and unbalanced.

FOX offered PTV a live feed, with the FOX branding and logo, without offering PTV any opportunity to use the content in any other way.

Worst of all, FOX demanded that PTV’s participation be via live webcast only, and that PTV not post any clips from the debate in archival or other form.

FOX’s offer was as one-sided as a Bill O’Reilly diatribe.

FOX’s "monopoly" demand is outrageous in that it (1) essentially requires PTV to contract away its First Amendment right of free press, including fair use, and (2) seeks to deny PTV the essence of its communications model – video on demand – while asserting its monopoly right to the web video version of the debate.

FOX cannot monopolize the Web; it cannot constitutionally monopolize political speech; it should not be allowed monopolize a debate it sponsors, nor can it legally; and it should learn from its corporate sibling MySpace that it cannot monopolize the Net or the Netroots.

At a time when C-SPAN, among others, is loosening its copyright claims to serve the public interest, it is ironic that FOX seeks to fulfill its FCC public interest requirements even as it does damage to the interest of American Democracy. Rupert Murdoch, long a proponent of free air time for candidates, should be ashamed.

PoliticsTV.com has informed the Nevada Democratic Party that it is eager to participate in webcasting another debate, forum, or event on fair, democratic terms, and is eager to do so.

But under the circumstances dictated by FOX, PTV regrettably cannot agree to participate in the August debate.

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor. He writes and edits PEEK, the blog of blogs.

© 2009 All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//49013/