Petition campaigns are under way, aimed at the Nevada Democrats and the DNC, applying serious heat to drop Fox’s control of the event because it is not a legitimate news organization.
I see this as a typical problem on both sides of the aisle, but since I am of the right, I obviously see it happening more on the left. They overreach. They just can't help themselves.
Look, the argument that a Democratic debate would not get a fair shake on Fox News is at least capable of being discussed. It fails, in my view - for example, Fox News held Democratic presidential debates in 2003 and in 2004 without any kind of noticeable adverse affect on the campaign. But it is at least a rational position.
The position that Fox News is not "a legitimate news organization", however, is irrational. Lots of people feel (with evidence) that Fox News generally has an editorial slant that is more conservative that most other news groups. I feel that there is an obvious editorial slant (to the left) for most other news outlets (CBS, ABC, MSNBC in particular). Having a slant is not the same as not being a legitimate news organization.
What makes a news outlet "illegitimate"? Alternet, which published the above charge, claims on its website that it is
an award-winning news magazine and online community that creates original journalism
What makes Alternet a "legitimate news source"? What makes them more legitimate than Fox News? Fox News is obviously a legitimate news organization, and claiming they aren't simply makes the more rational parts of the left's arguments look worse by association.
If you want to make an argument, make your best argument - don't start throwing around extremist claims, conspiracy theories and the like. They just water down your position. If your point has merit, it will be considered.
No comments:
Post a Comment