Edwards Wrong to Ditch Fox

John Edwards gets more than his share of good mentions from this column. The former senator from North Carolina has proven to be a far abler and far more progressive presidential contender in the run up to the 2008 Democratic caucuses and primaries than he was as the 2004 campaign season approached. And he's doing better this time around, as evidenced by a new Strategic Vision poll of likely Iowa caucus goers that has Edwards at 27 percent, Illinois Senator Barack Obama at 20 percent, New York Senator Hillary Clinton at 19 percent, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Delaware Senator Joe Biden both at 4 percent, and all the other Democratic contenders at one percent or less.

But Edwards was flat wrong to decide to announce that he would not participate in a Congressional Black Caucus Political Leadership Education Institute-organized debate that for September 23 on the Fox News Channel.

It's nothing against the CBC, says the Edwards campaign, which promises the candidate will appear in another CBC-organized debate that is set for CNN. Edwards is objecting to appearing on Fox – just as he did when he declined earlier to join a August 14 debate in Reno, Nevada, that is to be co-hosted by Fox News and the Nevada Democratic Party. (Plans for the Reno debate were ultimately cancelled.)

"We just called the CBC to let them know that we're looking forward to their debate with CNN but we're not going to participate in the proposed debate with Fox. There's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending to be objective," explains Edwards for President deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince. "If there was any uncertainty as to Fox's objectivity, it was put to rest when they attacked Democratic candidates, Democratic constituency groups, and the Nevada Democratic Party when their last proposed debate was canceled for lack of support. The CBC champions critical issues that matter enormously to the future of our country, and they deserve to be discussed in a forum that will give those issues -- and Democrats -- a fair hearing."

Nothing that the Edwards campaign is saying about Fox is untrue. The network is over-the-top in its Republican partisanship. It's hosts attack Democrats on ridiculous grounds. They defend the Bush administration even when leading conservatives part company with the White House.

But Democrats need to get a whole lot better at dealing with conservative media. After all, it's not just Fox that was cheerleading for a war with Iraq in 2003, that gave overly-sympathetic coverage to the fantasies of the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" in 2004, and that continue to treat even the most absurd statements by Vice President Dick Cheney with reverence. Those complaints could be directed at all three major broadcast networks, and most of their cable compatriots.

Most broadcast and cable networks are unfriendly forums for progressive ideas. But they won't get any friendlier if Democratic presidential candidates refuse to appear on them. And those candidates won't get any more agile when it comes to parrying attacks – be they fair or unfair – if they avoid challenging venues.

Edwards should have accepted the invitation and then used the debate to talk about what's wrong with American media. He could have started by discussing the flaws of Fox and then, if he wanted to do something useful, he could have pointed out that they are mirrored by other networks.

Instead, he has decided to avoid a potentially unfriendly forum. It's a political misstep that this able contender ought to reconsider.

If George Bush's sheltered-life presidency has taught us anything at all, it is that there is something very dangerous about a commander-in-chief who will not face his critics. Bush is a man without courage or capability.

John Edwards and the other Democrats who would replace the current chief executive should, by their actions, confirm that they are better than Bush. They won't do that by skipping debates on Fox. Lamentable as the network may be, it provides a forum that should be accepted and exploited by anyone who claims to have the strong backbone and the quick wit it takes to serve as president.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (73)

1. Disagree. Maybe Edwards bowing out will give other candidates cover to do the same and the whole thing gets cancelled. Edwards is making the right move.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 04/09/2007 @ 2:04pm

2. It's wrong to consider Fox News an "unfriendly forum" that Edwards wants to avoid - as though it were a speaking engagement from the Federalist Society or the American Enterprise Institute. Fox News - as Robert Greenwald's documentary has shown - is a NETWORK that pretends to be fair and balanced but specializes in distorting the message of Democrats and ignoring anyone else on the left, while creating and amplifying the most vicious smears of the Republican machine. What Democrats need to do is to deny Fox the credibility it seeks as a legitimate news organization, which it clearly is not. Edwards did exactly the right thing.

   Posted by jgold2 at 04/09/2007 @ 2:10pm

3. Yeah, the old saw "there's no such thing as bad publicity" plays here and quick-wittedness is necessary to parry "when did you stop beating your wife?" loaded questions which is what Edwards is seeking to avoid. Shoot, CBS's Katie Kourick's insidious referencing of a zero/sum dichotomization of the Edwards' professional campaigning causing(!) increased personal health risk to the cancer-fighting helpmeet spouse is a likely factor in this decision, don't you think?

   Posted by lewwelge at 04/09/2007 @ 2:13pm

4. Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/09/2007 @ 2:11pm

   Once again...Rio Braindead adds...nothing to the discussion. Anyone suprised?

   Posted by BlueTexan at 04/09/2007 @ 2:15pm

5. Rio-People cross others property on a regular basis,but only the nutjobs get their guns out on such occasions.I'm not surprised that you would be quoting a paranoid whacko.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 2:25pm

6. Freiheit-Fox claims to be a news network and not someone with an opposing viewpoint.If the politicians wanted to avoid people with an opposing viewpoint then they would refuse to debate anybody,but that isn't what they're doing.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 2:28pm

7. Edwards is treating Fox news the way the US treated China for 50 years..as if they didn't exist despite being the largest population on earth who hated the US or so we thought...and once engaged we found out our pre-meeting prejudices were skewed...

   To ignore Fox is to ignore the largest cable audience who would no doubt tune in to the debate, and therefore expose more of the "unwashed" to the dems messsage...a clear win for all.

   Fox leans to the right and every one knows about it, despite guys like Frank, this is no crime...the dems give them ammo...the balance of the media leans to the left,which all also know, and is also no crime, hell, even they admit it, and the repubs give them ammo....so what? .And both claim to just report the news, which is, as we also know...horseshit..

   Sooo... what this does show is Ewards lack of common sense and a thinly veiled attempt to make a weak minded political point and score a victory..for who, I am not sure , but it ain't a victory for Edwards..rather demonstrates to many his lack of a broad view to be a presidential thinker, and just another poilitcal hack..

   Do I hear an ambulance siren? Coming to resusitate his campaign?

   I can see Hillary finish him off at the debate pointing to an empty podium...on Fox...

   Bring on the debate on all forums and let the most possible view it.. a win for ALL of us..

   Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 2:41pm

8. Maasch-Fox does not "lean" to the right.It is a propaganda network that is no different than Pravda or Goebbels.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 2:44pm

9. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/09/2007 @ 2:41pm

   "Edwards is treating Fox news the way the US treated China for 50 years..as if they didn't exist despite being the largest population on earth who hated the US or so we thought...and once engaged we found out our pre-meeting prejudices were skewed..."

   I guess this applies to the way failed king george is treating Syria, Iran, N. Korea, Cuba, Venezula, etc.?

   Posted by BlueTexan at 04/09/2007 @ 2:50pm

10. This IS an auspicious occasion......I agree with John Nichols.

    Edwards wants to be President and stare eyeball-to-eyeball with figures like Ahmadinejad, Kim, and other Merry Pranksters....

    but he's a'skeered of Fox News?!?!??

    (BTW, I'M NOBODY...given your PREVIOUS argument that Dems appearing on Fox, would be like Jews appearing on the "goebbels network"....I haven't seen you YET go after Mr Nichols, but dodge around the issue....is he wrong?)

    Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 2:57pm

11. "I guess this applies to the way failed king george is treating Syria, Iran, N. Korea, Cuba, Venezula, etc.?"

    No, it is a little different,,we have had some sort of relations with all the above for over 50 years..with the exception of N Korea and Cuba..we have had embassys ...so in that light China and your post are apples and oranges....imo

    Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 2:59pm

12. Mask-If I view Fox as the Goebbels network then I would be disagreeing with Mr. Nichols on this subject.It isn't a matter of being scared of Fox.It's a question of whether or not you legitimize their claim of being a news network.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 3:04pm

13. by the way, I'M....don't want to get attacked for misquoting you...

    "No More Imus" by Adam Howard---today

    "Mask-To have Democrats debate on Fox would make as much sense as Jews debating hitler on the goebbels network."---Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/09/2007 @ 12:18pm

    So you think John Nichols is.....being senseless???

    Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 3:05pm

14. Passed each other in the ether, hmmm?

    "It's a question of whether or not you legitimize their claim of being a news network."---Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/09/2007 @ 3:04pm

    Okay, so John Nichols is LEGITIMIZING Fox?

    Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 3:06pm

15. Most Faux viewers are sheep who can not be led astray from their narrow view of the world.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 2:25pm

    Unlike subscribers to The Nation right. Fair and balanced, that's The Nation all right.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 04/09/2007 @ 3:09pm

16. "That's where people like me and personalities like Limbaugh and Hannity are different. They never find fault with their party. "

    Obviously you haven't been listening to Limbaugh in the last 5 years...he chews the admin and the repubs ass more than you whine about them.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 3:11pm

17. "Edwards is treating Fox news the way the US treated China for 50 years' Let's see that takes us back to 1957. In those years, Republican presidents have governed for more than half so what's your point?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 3:06pm

    That both were were wrong to do so....keep up Frank...or go back and re read.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 3:15pm

18. Rio-Your belief that rush,Ann Coulter etc aren't extremists shows amazing ignorance.The reason so many conservatives have the time to listen to Rush is because they don't have jobs.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 3:19pm

19. Rio-Your claim that leftists hate Nixon because he opened the door to diplomacy with China shows amazing ignorance.You must be very young and weren't around back then.By the way,Nixon resigned in disgrace.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 3:22pm

20. I'M ....uh.....no comment on Mr Nichols "legitimizing Fox's claim of being a news network" by opposing Edwards on this???

    or does a direct response to that not fit with your "Spiritual beliefs"?

    hehe

    Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 3:25pm

21. Mask-I guess Nichols would be legitimizing Fox now wouldn't he?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 3:28pm

22. Rio-The Democratic party existed prior to Nixon and watergate.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 3:29pm

23. Bush is afraid to debate or even speak in front of those who would not agree with him 110%. He is fearful of the truth, and one inescapable truth is that he is out of touch with the citizens of this (once) great nation.

    John Edwards is not afraid. He has the conviction not to lend credibility to a network that does not deserve it. I applaud his principle.

    Sorry, John.

    Posted by drhammer at 04/09/2007 @ 3:36pm

24. Thought you said you didn't listen to Limbaugh.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 3:30pm

    I do not listen very much, perhaps 3 times a month..I travel most of the times he is on..but I have heard him bitch about Bush and republicans enough to know he feels as I do...Bush is no conservative, neither was the repub congress just fired...

    I do believe you listen to him more than any right wing nut...99% of your posts quote him or you site him...and from what I read of your poss you seem to miss his entire message...and you constantly need to be reminded that Rush is entertainment...it is Hannidy that I never listen too and I can't stand his voice.

    I do find one thing about Rush refreshing..he is consistant and sites his sources.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 3:56pm

25. "Again, you mix apples with oranges. One has nothing to do with the other. Very poor comparison. '

    Obvioulsly do can't see the comparison and find the common points..thats ok.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 3:58pm

26. Edwards is right. Fox does not want a debate. Their interest is in having Bush's "positions" aired. They will give "equal time" to Bush supporters as if they were serious candidates, though by now these are marginalized figures. The game's rigged. Stay out of it.

    Posted by Villard at 04/09/2007 @ 4:04pm

27. RIO,

    Frank doesn't seem to sense the position he is in... he claims all of us who don't see the wisdom of the Edwards or Hillarys points are automaticlly Limbaugh ditto heads and Fox news junkies or that we support all things Bush. He misses by a wide mile that all of us who are conservative are just as upset with Bush as Frank is, only for other reasons..and Frank can't comprehend those reasons, and therefore makes in depth discussion with Frank impossible....all the while ignoring his own left footed march as he licks Hillarys balls at her alter and tells us he just had communion it is great..

    In the mean time he listens to Rush more than any right winger and still manages to miss the entire point of a talk show host who has earned the largest audience on his own with out doonations, purly on his message alone and he misses that fact that Fox news out guns CNN..consistanly....he is a left ideologe who thinks he is middle of the road.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 4:10pm

28. VILLARD,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Their interest is in having Bush's "positions" aired.

    FLASH....

    BUSH AIN'T RUNNING!!!!!

    NOT EVEN IN A DEMOCRATIC DEBATE....

    FLASH!!!!!!!!!!

    BUSH AIN'T RUNNING!!!!!

    HOPEFULLY, BUT NO GAURENTEE, THE DEMS WILL BE DISCUSSING THEIR POSITIONS!!!! BECAUSE BUSH AIN'T RUNNING AND NO ONE THEIR WILL BE SPEAKING BUSH POSITIONS..

    I NEED A DRINK AND IT IS NOT EVEN FRIDAY AFTER WORK....

    Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 4:13pm

29. OK, name me one personality on CNN who's is as extreme as Hannity is on Faux.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 4:11pm | ignore this person

    Aaron Brown was so bad he eas fired...for one..how about the entire staff on air?

    Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 4:14pm

30. Mask-I guess Nichols would be legitimizing Fox now wouldn't he?

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/09/2007 @ 3:28pm

    No...but then again if some "right-wing propagandist" like...oh...me, had said John Edwards made a mistake not going on Fox and that he needs to show he's TOUGH enough to take on FNC....

    I'm sure you'd have LOTS to say to the writer of such a piece....but...as it's John Nichols, it's better for you to concentrate on what MAASCH or FREIHEIT say!

    Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 4:21pm

31. Sorry, but I don't see anywhere on this thread where you directly answered the questions. Here they are again. Wanna give it a shot?

    Do you agree that democrats are invested in the Defeat of America? Do you agree that the Swift Boaters were telling the truth? Do you believe that George Bush is actually a GOOD president, or a legitimate one?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 4:16pm

    I will for you Frank, not that it matters.

    1. I think the Dems policys will lead to an American Defeat on many levels...I also don't think they believe this to be the case, ..I don't think the Dems are invested knwoingly in defeat. No one who cares about the US would do that,therfore,I believe the Dems care about America..

    Can you follow this?

    2. Yes.

    3. This is actually 2 questions , Frank,

    3A. Over all, no, but sometimes, yes....he is a good leader, despite my disagreement with where he is leading us.

    3B. Yes

    How's that Frank.....the premise of your questions is a little weak, tho.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 4:28pm

32. FREI,

    All the channels you mentioned are biased.

    They are all promoting an agenda from a pro-corporate standpoint. Fox is more nakedly partisan than the others, but where is the voice that asks.....what is good for the electorate? Rather than looks at the situation and asks what is good for our companies?

    There is no dissenting voice either in the TV arena or in the newspaper arena. It takes a lot of money to elect a representative democracy and all sorts of non-media companies are more than willing to keep the Hobson's choice routine going by transferring profits in the form of political media spots to the media conglomerates. Those media conglomerates are then more than willing to not seriously disrupt the lucrative (for them) status quo.

    The only losers.....democracy itself and USA citizens!

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/09/2007 @ 4:29pm

33. JM,

    Your refusal to allow facts to shape your opinion is amazing!

    Now that Election 2004 is over you should probably do a tiny bit of CURRENT research on the Swift boat accusations.....were you ever to do so (which we all here know you won't because its not in your DNA to let facts get in the way of your opinion) you would find that the Swift Boat organization was ENTIRELY discredited.

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/09/2007 @ 4:37pm

34. Bush is a much better president than Carter or Clinton, but Hoover was a BETTER president than EITHER of them were, so we may have some real problems with some of the people Bush delegated authority to, but what president has not!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/09/2007 @ 4:39pm

    That certainly reeks of an INDEPENDENT thinker not just someone registered as Independent (so he can avoid the RNC begging letters)! NOT!

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/09/2007 @ 4:43pm

35. "That's a stretch of the truth and you know it.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 4:36pm

    It is sad that you can't see this at all....you need to spend some time around some conservatves..breath in their air...you might be surprised at what you learn about them...and more startling...what you would learn about yourself.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 4:44pm

36. Rio-I was unaware that the communist horde invaded and conquered America after we left Nam.Obviously,we weren't in any danger.In fact,if you look around you'll notice that "communism" is pretty much out.China is "communist" in name only,the USSR is gone,and Viet Nam didn't attack the US.Kerry is a war hero unlike your boy bush and yourself.A little respect for those that fought,please.Tell us again how you're an independent.That one is always funny.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 4:50pm

37. Maasch-I have had to spend much of my life living amongst conservatives and it isn't that great.Fortunately,I had a job that consisted of mainly liberals.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 4:52pm

38. Frank,

    I grew up with Aarons brother, John..Aaron was older...the Browns made Hillary look like Reagan....wealthy Minnesota jews who were huge in the Humphrey era...admitted socialists via 1930s Europe per conversations and partys during my high school years in the 70s..(John, like us, went to political rallys to look for girls as high school boys in the late 60s early 70s, as all red blooded American boys did then)...a little personal history for you ..

    Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 4:53pm

39. Bush is a much better president than Carter or Clinton, but Hoover was a BETTER president than EITHER of them were...

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/09/2007 @ 4:35pm

    See, I've known RIO lately to be just Hard Right...but hadn't seen any support of Bush lately, so merely thought he was dodging the issue. Now I see he's fully in the Bush "cult of personality" 30% Club and as the sun sets on his agenda will still be telling tales of Dubya and all the great things he did as President.

    But almost as nutty (if that's possible) is his defense of ....Hoover! Hoover was awful. And not because he was some "rock-ribbed conservative"....the man signed Smoot-Hawley, which raised tariffs (i.e. taxes) just as we were going into the Depression and which many historians credit as WORSENING the downturn that had been going on since the Fall of 1929.

    By the way....that's PROTECTIONISM...and a key component of our "fair trade" fans out there.

    Want to blame Hoover for the Depression? Yep....but not for the reason you might think!

    Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 4:53pm

40. Mask,

    Will not bother Rio....he's your quintessential Pat Buchanan Conservative regarding trade / immigration.....but Pat loses Rio because Pat OPPOSES the Iraq occupation!

    That makes Rio an INDEPENDENT type guy!

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/09/2007 @ 4:58pm

41. Bob Novak was on CNN until he had a hissy fit and said a cuss word. Typical of most neo-conmen, they can't handle a debate.

    That in response to whoever asked that question...who on CNN is right of Hannity.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 04/09/2007 @ 5:58pm

42. So Obama bailed on the Fox hosted debate...hmmmmm. Didn't I predict that this might happen in the first post on this thread? Next up, Hillary does a "me three!" so as not to be left out.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 04/09/2007 @ 6:00pm

43. Mr. Nichols, I have to agree with you on this occassion. While I don't watch or listen to the news that much, but I do think it's important that any Presidential candidate running for the highest office in the land should be able to show themselves tough enough to deal with the criticism (or biases) from any media outlet.

    An empty podium will speak volumes to the viewers of FOX News that Edwards can't cut it.

    Sometimes you have to take the message to the people, not take the people to the message.

    Posted by ACook at 04/09/2007 @ 6:29pm

44. Mask-To my knowledge Nichols wasn't on this thread so there was no point for me to direct my comments to him.If he has half a brain then he'll figure out that I disagree with him if he reads my posts.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 6:49pm

45. ACook-People who believe that Fox news is news won't be voting Democrat so they won't lose any votes by not going on fox,but would lose votes if they went on Fox.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 6:51pm

46. Edwards and Obama are doing the right thing. There is no reason to legitimize Fox News.

    Posted by pizzmoe at 04/09/2007 @ 6:57pm

47. Rio Bravo,

    I agree that we cannot assume that MSN or CNN are unbaised. However, the conservative bias on FOX is flagrant. I don't know if you notice, but since the Republicans got their butts kicked in the mid-term election, Fox news spends more time covering non-political stories such as Anna Nicole, etc. Maybe they don't want to face reality?

    The real extremists are the conservatives of the Republican party with their "family values". Did you know that Newt Gingrich had an affair at the same time he led the investigation into Clinton's affair?

    Republicans claim that they want small government, but yet intrude on reproductive rights, scientific research and tax paying peoples' rights to choose whom they marry.

    They also spend a lot of tax payer money. I think people are most pissed because networks like FOX refuse to discuss the horrible spending problem on the unpopular war.

    Posted by Moderate08 at 04/09/2007 @ 7:05pm

48. I'm going to flog this horse yet again.

    "Fair and balanced" does not mean the same thing as

    "truthful".

    Don't let Murdoch make it your paradigm.

    Posted by drhammer at 04/09/2007 @ 7:13pm

49. This is not going to help Obama and Edwards...it is playing right into Hillary,...and she will eat them...they are foolish and do not deserve to be considered as presidential timber..so they have preached to their choir and ignored those standing at the front door looking in...and lost a chance to do what they needed to..convert the unwashed who watch and feel at home with Fox...they confirmed their status as left wing kooks in many eyes of viewers who enjoy FOX by FREE CHOICE.....

    Hillary will get the look...and the comments,..."well, at least she came her to talk to us..."

    Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 7:42pm

50. Maasch-The unwashed who watch Fox won't be voting Democrat.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 7:48pm

51. Posted by FREIHEIT 04/09/2007 @ 8:05pm

    Here here...he listens more than anyone else I know...

    Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 8:29pm

52. Mask-To my knowledge Nichols wasn't on this thread so there was no point for me to direct my comments to him.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/09/2007 @ 6:49pm

    LOL! I'M you are SO predictable. If a "Nation" writer posts something you AGREE with, you have no problem saying so!

    But if they say something you DISAGREE with...you go after the "right-wingers" on the thread, because ....I don't know...probably because it'd be horrific for you to AGREE with guys like MAASCH, ACOOK, or me.

    So horrific that you have to be "subtle" about your disagreement with the premise of this article and say "Oh, Mr Nichols can figure out that I don't particularly, in full, absolutely, 100%, totally agree with its premise....now, onto to me talking about how wrong MAASCH and FREHEIT are, because it's more in tune with my Spiritual beliefs!"

    From now, I'll know any criticism I get from you on being a "right-wing propagandist"....comes from somebody too afraid to disagree with a fellow "progressive" and therefore has little to offer but "Hi-5s" and "attaboys".

    Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 9:00pm

53. Thanks Mr. Nichols for prompting this debate on what exactly constitutes impartiality. Learning that Obama has joined Edwards in avoiding the boastfully biased base blather, Faux spins as "debate," encourages me to support his decision.

    On the other hand, again, unfortunately, there's no such thing as bad publicity/sensationalism in our anti-intellectual dumbed down culture.

    Posted by lewwelge at 04/09/2007 @ 9:04pm

54. Mask-What are you talking about?I said numerous times that I disagreed with the article.The rest of your response is babble that has no relevance to anything I posted.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 9:52pm

55. Apparently there are in fact, 2 Americas. The one that John Edwards will talk to, and those he won't. In the media, and in his own neighborhood. Way to go, John. Send the cancer victim out to fight in your place.

    Big mistake. How could Fox news trash ALL Democrat candidates and somehow get away with it? Regardless whether Fox or someone else holds the debate, they're ALL gonna disect it to death anyway.

    I say have it on PBS. This way those 25 diehard Yanni fans can learn the names of those who are actually running.

    Posted by Sliver at 04/09/2007 @ 10:28pm

56. I guess John Nichols is human like the rest of us, is merely ALMOST infallible. Obama having joined Edwards in declining to participate, there will be no debate among the main contenders on Fox's turf.

    The difference between Faux News and the rest of the corporate media is a difference in kind, not degree. The mainstream corporate media have an unconscious bias in favor of the powerful and the status quo, but make an effort to be nonpartisan.

    Faux News is an old fashioned partisan, ideological propaganda machine, headed by veteran GOP hatchet man Roger Ailes. Exposing Faux for what it is, as Edwards, Obama and the blogosphere are doing, is a necessary part of the struggle for mass media which are actually fair and balanced. John, your batting average is still in the .990's, but you blew this one.

    Posted by Albanius at 04/09/2007 @ 10:32pm

57. ABC's Good Morning America displays his incredible anti republican bias all the time.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 04/09/2007 @ 8:05pm

    Do you mean the show that conservative icon George Will is the de facto co-host?

    How about an example of bias?

    And you can't count the reporting of Republican crimes and scandals as bias if they really happened.

    Posted by Turk33 at 04/10/2007 @ 12:05am

58. I believe Hillary has just made a rare error...doing a me too with Obama and Edwards on Fox...now they will slice them up and they should...if they can't handle a small TV station they think doesn't support them, how are they going to handle nations that detest them and want to kill them?...And more importantly, want to kill tthe rest of us?

    I now have to look at them with even more suspistion...maybe Fox should put on all the other Dems that the MSM will not..

    Posted by john maasch at 04/10/2007 @ 12:10am

59. Sorry Maasch, you're playing the company whistle too shrilly; no politician with any sense allows their adversary to control their message before it's even out of their mouth. That's why Bush wouldn't have a debate where any of the pictures could be taken from the back. Odd how he needed a "heart monitoring device" or whatever the hell their last excuse for it was then, and doesn't need it now, eh?

    Posted by brantl at 04/10/2007 @ 07:57am

60. On Edwards' refusal to lower himself by appearing on Fox News Network John Nichols concludes: "John Edwards and the other Democrats who would replace the current chief executive should, by their actions, confirm that they are better than Bush. They won't do that by skipping debates on Fox. Lamentable as the network may be, it provides a forum that should be accepted and exploited by anyone who claims to have the strong backbone and the quick wit it takes to serve as president."

    Quick wit? Gimme a break! Edwards let Cheney walk all over him during their one and only debate before the 2004 election. It wasn't until after the debate that someone (not Edwards) discovered that he and Cheney had appeared together at least three times. Cheney caustically dismissed Edwards during the debate, claiming he never even met Edwards. The "Aw shucks" boyish demeanor by Edwards hardly displayed sharpness or awareness of the game he was getting into, a game for which he was over his head and ill-prepared to fight.

    Edwards' only primary victory came not from North Carolina, the state he represented in the U.S. Senate, but from South Carolina. He lost in the other primaries during "Super Tuesday."

    The Democrats' actions are now reminiscent of Kerry's "I voted for the war before I voted against it" as was recently revealed when Carl Levin declared that he is now prepared to fund the troops fully, giving up the only lever Democrats could use effectively in stopping Bush's inexorable drive to expand the Iraq War and possibly carry it over to Iran and Syria before he ends his term in less than two years. Now, it's Levin's turn to say "I voted against the war before I'm now prepared to support it." Hey, you're either on the bus or you're off the bus Senator Levin. Which is it?

    As far as appearing on such a totally biased and depraved Bush media echo chamber like Fox News Network, no Democrat should waste one minute on that lying, deceiving and totally depraved, pro-Bush, pro-Republican propaganda forum. But, John Nichols seems to think Edwards' pandering to this piece of garbage that passes for informative news shows character. What a joke!

    Posted by richard729 at 04/10/2007 @ 10:26am

61. But, John Nichols seems to think Edwards' pandering to this piece of garbage that passes for informative news shows character. What a joke!

    Posted by RICHARD729 04/10/2007 @ 10:26am

    Gosh RICHARD, attacking John Nichols that way. You realize now you're nothing but a "right-wing propagandist" now!

    Posted by Mask at 04/10/2007 @ 11:52am

62. Mask, your comment "Gosh RICHARD, attacking John Nichols that way. You realize now you're nothing but a "right-wing propagandist" now!" just underscores one of the biggest differences between Democrats and the current crop of lock-step, Bush Bootlicking Republican loyalists.

    I'll criticize Democrats just as quickly as I will the Bush mob for the simple reason that Democrats have yet to learn to play hardball with the corrupt, depraved Republicans.

    If John Nichols thinks Democratic Party candidates should grovel in front of Fox News cameras that's his opinion and he stated so. I just disagree totally with it.

    Call me a "right wing propagandist" if that's your response but I couldn't care less what name you call me since I'm just another message poster here with an opinion. Besides, I've never seen any of the Nation's columnists or writers comment on the opinions posted here by the "chattering masses" but I strongly disagree with Nichols' suggesting that Edwards should ingratiate himself in front of Bush's official Ministry of Disinformation, Fox News.

    Posted by richard729 at 04/10/2007 @ 12:57pm

63. I thoroughly agree with you, John. In a world when almost all the media have a "spin", it is the public who loses and we cannot count on any network to give us all sides. I believe that all the candidates should embrace any opportunity to debate the issues. Perhaps if we have enough debates, we will be able to see which debates are (more closely)staged and maybe even get a glimpse of the true character of the candidates.

    Posted by mentoree at 04/10/2007 @ 1:01pm

64. Posted by RICHARD729 04/10/2007 @ 12:57pm

    Calmez-vous, mon ami. I was joking. I was referring to earlier posts here by my friend I'M NOBODY who seems to find it hard to disagree with anybody on HIS side of the political aisle (except indirectly or subtlely)....

    and to the knee-jerk "progressives" who see any criticism of our friends here at "The Nation" as some "right-wing attack"!

    Although, as you will see, I AGREE with Mr Nichols. It's ridiculous to think that Edwards and Obama can't "go up against" Fox News and knock them down a peg or two on their own network....but are somehow going to be able to handle them AFTER they become President.

    Frankly, it's a bit hypocritical too. We hear all the time how we should "not be afraid to negotiate and meet with the leaders of Syria, North Korea, Iran" and should IGNORE Republican/conservative calls that we are "legitimizing those evil regimes".....

    yet the same policy doesn't seem to work against a cable news network, does it?

    Posted by Mask at 04/10/2007 @ 2:03pm

65. Mask-If you read my posts you'll discover that I disagreed with Nichols on this issue and have disagreed with leftists when it comes to belief in God as well as other issues.Don't blame me for the idiotic comment you made to the other poster.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/10/2007 @ 2:17pm

66. Example of bias: "A lot of his skeptics agree that Gore makes a powerful point. The scientific consensus is clear, and Gore urged Congress to listen to scientists, not special interests.... Here's hoping Congress puts partisanship aside, and comes together to act boldly on global warming." -- CBS anchor Katie Couric writing in her "Couric & Co." blog on CBSNews.com, March 21.

    I guess I'd have to agree that giving creedence to the majority of most educated people in the world is a "liberal" tendency, as those who deny that humans have played a major role in the rising temperatures of the world are also those who have difficulty with evolution, medical advances, etc.

    "President Bush visits with Guatemala's leader today and then will visit a sacred Mayan ruin, where some critics jab he is likely to leave behind, quote, ‘evil spirits.' They say they are going to perform a spiritual cleansing there afterwards, just in case." -- ABC's Chris Cuomo, March 12 Good Morning America.

    Reporting what some critics have said in what was probably a sarcastic tone shows bias? And you consider that in the same ballpark as conservative commentators constantly labeling anybody who doesn't agree with 100% of lemming policy as America-haters, tree-huggers, and communists?

    On Friday's Good Morning America, weatherman and liberal environmental activist Sam Champion hyped a new global warming study released on April 6. The ABC anchor also featured a representative from a left-wing environmental group and failed to identify the organization's political slant. Only minutes after reporting on the "arctic blast" of unusually cold temperatures that much of the country is facing, Champion touted a new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that noted "we're already facing earlier springs."

    Again with science being biased? But that's right - that's the M.O. of reactionaries - villify the messenger and the mud will spatter on the message. Most of the lemmings were all too eager to base an invasion on spotty (ie., faked, contradictory, and inconsistent) data, but when almost the entire scientific community has made it clear that human actions have accelerated global warming drastically, reactionaries need more proof before believing.

    Golly, these are just a few of hundreds of examples of the liberal tilt the MSM has in the camera's lens. Add to that the editorial pages of the NYT and LA Times and the cartooning of Toles, et al, editorials and political cartoons are by their very nature biased - but a channel that claims to be a news channel should not be biased like FAUX News is - and you can start to understand why liberal is considered normal. Until Fox News and Limbaugh there was no real opposing voice in the MSM. I know, I'm 50 and used to be quite liberal in my opinions, until I actually started to question authority.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 04/10/2007 @ 01:36am

    You're equating reporting of facts and events that disagree with your world view as "bias" actually shows your bias. The difference is, if the scientific community came out tomorrow and said "Sorry! We screwed up! When we were correlating our data, someone forgot to convert Celsius to Fahrenheit. There is no human effect on the climate" most on the left would actually heave a sigh of relief, not condemn the scientific community for screwing up all the grants and projects studying global warming and demand more and more proof.

    Reporting the truth behind the invasion of Iraq, the mishandling of Hurridcane Katrina, the outing of a covert CIA agent, the firing of US attorneys, the complicity in the torture of prisoners, and the many, many other snafus of this administration isn't bias. In fact, the MSM shows it's corporate bias by not doing more reporting and not asking the harder questions when all these things were going on. So I guess I agree that the MSM is biased, but not in the same way you mean it.

    Posted by Turk33 at 04/10/2007 @ 3:02pm

67. I am beginning to think that this rio bravo creature is pure satire, ala steven colbert. Some of the other right wing posters occasionally manage to express themselves in a coherent, cogent fashion, but if this guy is serious then he is batshit, howl at the moon crazy. In his opening salvo he defends some paranoid nutjob hillbilly who waves his gun in the air at surveyors probably all the while hollering about the war of northern aggression, and then the level of discourse just deteriorates from there. I fail to see why someone who so obviously struggles in vain against the vagaries of the english language would open themselves up to such rampant, repeated public humiliation unless it was in the name of humor. So bravo, Bravo- the world needs a clown, and since i find myself in a somewhat dour pre- cerveza mood today, how about telling us all how old you think the earth is. Please.

    Posted by entropy at 04/10/2007 @ 3:43pm

68. Posted by entropy at 04/10/2007 @ 3:43pm

69. I am somewhat disturbed that so many posters here view the media in terms of right/left ideology rather than seeing the deeper roots of media behavior. Major media outlets are run by corporations, and their only loyalty is to the bottom line, and the preservation of the current power structure. It makes little difference whether journalists lean left (they do) when the structure of their medium constrains content to "acceptable" discourse within defined neo liberal parameters. I would highly recommend reading Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent before spouting off about the "liberal media."

    Posted by entropy at 04/10/2007 @ 3:51pm

70. "And those candidates won't get any more agile when it comes to parrying attacks -- be they fair or unfair -- if they avoid challenging venues."

    Maybe if he practices parrying unfair attacks on Fox long enough, John Edwards can develop the skills to become a successful trial lawyer. (Sarcasm Off.)

    Posted by RLawrence at 04/10/2007 @ 4:03pm

71. Disagree, Fox isn't interested in anything other than sound bites they can use later to portray Dems as stupid. They (Dems) really don't need the help and Fox doesn't need ratings.

    Posted by aviator00 at 04/11/2007 @ 12:20am

72. Democrats, liberals and indeed anyone who does not share/support the ultra-conservative views and tactics of the FNC should have no on-camera contact with that entity. This has nothing to do with "free speech" or "courage" or proving oneself "better." This is simply a sound marketing strategy to advance one's message and to take that message to audiences more suseptible to receipt. Rupert Murdoch has made the FNC extremely sucessful by giving his audience exactly what they want--validation of their belief system and the entertainment value of presenting the spectacle of Christians fed to the lions. As a 30+-year veteran of television news marketing, I can attest-- Fox viewers will NEVER be persuaded to vote for those who do not share their views. And, smart capitalist that he is, Murdoch will ALWAYS give his audience what they want, which is to diminish "the other side" either through on-camera shout-downs, "when did you stop beating your wife" questioning, editorializing in graphic packaging or simply cutting microphones. After the fact of an on-camera appearance, out-of-context editing, derisive and unchallenged commentary and conjecture serve to perpetuate the "beatings" which can go on for days and through the time-honored advertising tactic of repetition, serve to further inculcate viewer belief. By depriving this audience of a primary reason to watch--the entertainment value of a ringside seat to Fight Club, the product becomes less desirable which leads to less frequent viewing, and less advertising support. Granted, cutting off content supply will not result in immediate audience decline or reversal of Fox tactics, but the goal should be to get the message out in as un-biased an environment as is humanly possible. Democrat,liberals and moderates should know by now, appearing on Fox is the Frog giving passage to the Scorpion--dumb.

    Posted by nauga at 04/11/2007 @ 11:32am

73. Go edwards Go I love what he did Dem complain that Dem have no ball, then Edwards show some and you still complain

    Posted by Robsteven at 04/14/2007 @ 9:03pm