Why don't the Dems running for Pres just boycott ABC and Faux?

[OregonBlue]

They have power only if we give them power. If all the Dems boycott them and they only have Publican talking heads on, how will it affect their viewership? I think it's great Senator Clinton did not give an interview to ABC and I hope she will not in the future.

It's time for us to take back the airwaves by refusing to play their game.

[billybob537]

1. I'm still wondering

why anyone but a left wing nut would appear on faux propaganda channel?

[OregonBlue]

3. They only have the power if we give it to them. Why not stand up and

refuse to play their game?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

2. I love that idea. Won't more people want to watch Democratic candidates than the repubs? We've had

the snake oil salesmen repubs in our faces for six f***ing years. MKJ

[poiuytsister]

4. There's no point is just preaching to the choir

The idea of showing up with the opposition is to win over new voters. One of the suckier aspects of the job is making nice with morans

[OregonBlue]

7. That's the old paradigm. What if ABC had a political news show and the opposition

didn't show up? What if the opposition only showed up on another channel's political news show? Which one would you watch? How powerful would the debate be if there's only one side debating. Pretty boring I'd guess. Hey, they only have the power if we give it to them. Time to take it back for the American people and the Democratic Party. STOP PLAYING THEIR GAME!!!

[Hippo_Tron]

14. They'd just get some fake Democrats and put them on the show

It will be like Hannity and Colmes. They'll put in a sock puppet like Alan Colmes to get his ass handed to him.

[Ian David]

5. We should refuse to pay for political ads on their channels, too. n/t

[depakid]

6. Because too many Dems would sell us out

Take your pick of DINO's.

Any one of them who you see on the air- or who you've seen enabling and legitimizing far right policies with their public statements and their votes.

[OregonBlue]

9. Let them. How long do you think the public will be interested in watching

only one side of a debate? Pretty fu__cking boring if you ask me? We have the power, they have it only because dems are giving it to them.

[LynneSin]

8. Because personally I think it would make them look weak

I haven't decided on who my candidate will be for 2008 but if I saw someone get on one of these right-wing screed talk shows and take charge like Clinton did with that Wallace guy from Fox - well that is the man/woman I'm planning on supporting

[OregonBlue]

10. I disagree. We are weak if we go on allowing them to lie and present

"both sides of the issue" even when one side is a lie.

[Peace Patriot]

11. I do like the idea. Time to stop playing the rightwing game.

But, like many strategies, its success would depend either on general consensus among the Democratic leadership (with some "moral" or "group" enforcement--you break the boycott, you'd better have a good reason), or on one or more key leaders refusing to cooperate with asshole corporate news monopolies. Also, as with any boycott, there needs to be a goal, and potential terms of negotiation. Example: Pelosi/Reid (or Dean) send a letter to Faux News saying that they will not appear on their shows any more, and are going to discourage other Dem leaders from doing so, unless they....voluntarily re-instate the "Fairness Doctrine" for Faux News shows? ...allow Dem leaders uninterrupted response/equal time during the '08 presidential election? ...whatever.

I think it needs to be public and highly visible--so that people know WHY Dem leaders are not appearing on a certain station, and so that the corporate news monopoly feels pressure to change. As we have been discussing on the Venezuela/Chavez threads*, TV stations do NOT hold any kind of right to use the public airwaves. They have to apply for a license to use the public airwaves for the public benefit. In the '60s and '70s--until Reagan--TV stations were OBLIGED, by their license, to provide EQUAL TIME for opposing views, whenever they stepped over the line from news to advocacy on an issue. We do need to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" --and we very much need to address the monopolistic control of news/opinion by private corporations (often war profiteers, no less, with a direct financial interest in promoting war)--but meanwhile the utter UN-fairness and lack of balance of some of the news monopolies could and should be addressed in whatever way we can. Another way is denying campaign ads to the worst offenders. I loathe this filthy campaign system, in which money that people contribute to a political candidate gets turned right over to corporate news monopolies that are pushing policies that make them rich, and that impoverish and kill corporate victims--in the case of Iraq, by the tens of thousands. It stinks! A system in which you have to have a million dollars to even think about running for Congress--and most of that money is not slated to talk about the issues, but to do puff pieces and hit pieces that enrich the corporate news monopolies. Yikes, it's so bad! And I would love to see the Democrats begin at least to USE the corporate news monopolies' DESIRE for that campaign money to force them to provide public service (--equal time, fairer coverage).



-----



*(Chavez has said that he's going to deny license renewal to RCTV in Venezuela, because of their participation in the violent military coup attempt, in '02, in which Chavez was kidnapped and the National Assembly and the courts were shut down. Idiots are using this to echo the corporate news monopoly line that Chavez is a "dictator." If a TV station pulled that crap in the U.S., they would not only deserve to lose their license to use the PUBLIC airwaves, there would be good reason to stop their news broadcasts immediately and arrest the perps for treason. Chavez has taken the MODERATE course of merely not renewing their license (which is just coming up for renewal). Lively political debate continues in Venezuela, and Chavez is still excoriated 24/7 by OTHER corporate news monopolies. Free speech is in no danger in Venezuela. In fact, free speech will likely be enhanced by this action, because it will pressure others with licenses to use the public airwaves to provide the public service of balanced opinion, and will make the fascist broadcasters think twice about supporting violent overthrow of the government. A fascist dictatorship is hardly a situation in which free speech or any rights are enhanced!)

[BlooInBloo]

12. Um, because they want to be the President of ALL of the United States?

And not just the "good ones", or of "the good people"?


EDIT: That, as opposed to the newly-unveiled Cowards Underground ability to simply not hear people who disagree with you. Wow - I wonder if they admins owe the gw administration any royalties on The Coward Feature.

[Selatius]

13. I think the better route is to use the airwaves against them. Simply, go on television and...

have the candidate mention the idea over and over again that it's time to break up media monopolies.