Nevada and Fox Update
The Nevada Democratic Party has ended its strange partnership with Fox News to host a candidate’s debate. PTV declined a live feed for a webcast. John Edwards opted out. Then Bill Richardson, too. Recent jokes by Roger Ailes, President of Fox News, about Barack Obama sealed Fox’s well-deserved fate.
Your Personal Note:
Thanks to everybody in Nevada who did anything to bring this to the conclusion it has come to. I don't live in Nevada, but my faith in Nevadans to be good stewards of our national candidates has been restored.
Posted by: Johnalive | Mar 10, 2007 8:58:11 PM
Please stop laying the blame for the FOX debacle at the door of the Nevada Democratic Party.. it was revealed on Friday that it was the WMP pac that conspired to force FOX news on the first presidential debate of the primary season.
What does it say about Bill Richardson’s quest that he refuses to address his role (via the WMP PAC, of which he is a leading member, which pressured the NDP to give the contract to FOX) in pressuring the Nevada Democratic party to contract the nation’s first democratic presidential debate, to FOX News?
Late on Friday, one half hour after Nevadan democrats announced it was cancelling the debate, Richardson suddenly announced that he was rescinding his confirmation to attend the debate. He also stated that he would refuse to discuss the matter further. A rather strange statement, given the popularity of the protest among democrats across the country to have FOX removed as the network controlling the debate.
There is a conflict of interest here. Richardson, as a candidate, never should have been involved in the process of deal making with a news network involving a debate in which he would be a participent, most especially one of the most important ones. It discredits the process, and gives voice to certain facts Richardson also finds inconvenient, for example, FOX doesn’t attack Richardson the way they do Barack Obama, John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. In fact FOX was the right wing’s weapon of choice in the false attacks against Bill Clinton. We are also aware of the fact that FOX serves the interest of the US Chamber of Commerce, and corporations that have sought to profit from seling our country out from under us, and who seek continued influence over and control over our government. Could they have sought to collude with Richardson, promising that they would marginalize his competitors in his favor?
FOX also makes excuses for and covers up for the Bush administration and corporations that have neglected our troops and sought to increase their wealth at their expense. Just who is Richardson representing?
I no longer trust or respect Richardon as a democratic leader, he is showing us why he does not deserve to have our faith placed in him
Posted by: Jenny Perry | Mar 11, 2007 10:21:03 AM
I’m not interested in assigning blame or pointing fingers. I’m just glad the deal with Fox is off. I understand why some people thought it was worth the risk for an outreach to the Fox market, but to me it looked more like a Fox ambush that would have rewarded unbalanced coverage in the past and led to more of the same in the future.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Mar 11, 2007 5:06:26 PM
A Western "Frontier" debate has been suggested to replace the FOX/NV debate. Details here:
Posted by: upnorth | Mar 12, 2007 12:12:05 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)