General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSincere question: Waste of time for President-elect Biden to go on FauxNews, OANN and Newsmax ?
Before you start typing, yes, I realize that IF...he was granted an interview, he would *probably* be attacked and they would try to slice and dice the interview to make him look bad. He would have to cope with propaganda and probably bogus questions about his son and the legitimacy of his election, all based on lies.
The theory behind my question is, taking the fight to the "enemy", so to speak. Going into the den of lions and hoping to accomplish something. Total waste of time, or maybe he could get some good points across ?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ProfessorGAC
(72,546 posts)The other 2, it's way too soon to consider.
It's just adds credibility to their craziness.
empedocles
(15,751 posts)
steve2470
(37,468 posts)If he cannot get a fair interview on OANN and Newsmax, then yes, forget them. Maybe the only way is to try ONE time. If that fails, then just sideline them forever.
ProfessorGAC
(72,546 posts)The audience for those other 2 are not ready to listen.
I think there are Faux viewers by habit. But, they're not irretrievable, as evidenced by the lack of hate toward Pete B for his appearances there.
I think there are reasonable limits to the spectrum addressed. One would not need to go on some Nazi FB channel. That's too far at the fringes.
So, we only agree partially.
Brainfodder
(7,244 posts)
TheBlackAdder
(29,493 posts)
hlthe2b
(109,564 posts)steve2470
(37,468 posts)I'm willing to concede that those two might be a total waste of time.
johnp3907
(3,978 posts)Don’t legitimize them.
NewJeffCT
(56,844 posts)doing the interview. They'd ask tough questions, but would generally be fair.
steve2470
(37,468 posts)I agree with you about Chris Wallace. He's too rightwing for me but yes he is much much more fair than any of the others there.
eta: https://www.cnbc.com/the-news-with-shepard-smith/?__source=pd_search_shepsmith
That's Shep Smith's new show on CNBC.
spooky3
(37,443 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)spooky3
(37,443 posts)
unblock
(55,072 posts)I agree with some of the other replies that foxnews is a maybe, at least it makes sense to have surrogates on it not Biden himself.
But mostly, the whole Democratic Party needs to be aggressive in blasting propaganda outlets and touting legitimate news sources. We certainly shouldn't enable them except to the extent we can't avoid it in trying to reach swing voters.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)
Proud liberal 80
(4,371 posts)Why give the latter two legitimacy? Yes, they have grown in viewership through people who want to be in a bubble and get spoon fed lies the Democrats are evil.
KWR65
(1,098 posts)
luv2fly
(2,521 posts)He's got smart people working for him, certainly they can figure out ways to help ensure that Joe's message comes out clearly and isn't mangled by editors.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)A few of these posts are probably from people who've complained the Democratic Party doesn't "speak to" various groups.
Well, here's President-Elect Biden who, like Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, etc., is willing to go where he can speak truth to captives of deceit who won't come to him. No one would expect the returns to be great, but that's not why they do it. Liberals believe presidents much serve ALL Americans, not just those who might vote for them.
wnylib
(25,256 posts)and Hillary.
I'd say no, don't do it. People on OANN and Newsmax are too far gone to reach with an interview, especially one that would be hell bent on using the occasion to their own ends. Why give them fuel? Or legitimacy?
Fox TV, maybe, but as others said, only if it's with Wallace.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)And it's not THOSE people who sabotaged Democrats, most were always going to vote against if they voted.
It was the dissident/Sanders left who knowingly splintered away enough support to throw what turned out to be the entire nation to Trump/Republicans. They knew both Russia and America's kleptocrats, RW MSM and Republicans were using them to elect Trump and the Republicans, but they accepted that assistance and never warned those who trusted them.
You could say entirely truthfully that speaking truth to Sanders' hard-core supporters didn't gain her votes.
They promised to vote third party (half did, half voted for Trump), but SHE HAD TO TRY. She had a DUTY TO THEM, as well as everyone else.
wnylib
(25,256 posts)that Obama faced, despite trying to reach out to RWers. And the chronic attacks on Hillary, long before 2016, no matter what she did. The Hillary bashing since 1992 set many people against her before she announced her run.
Sanders supporters played a role in 2016, but Hillary was villified by the right long before that.
As for an obligation to all the people, yes, a president governs for everyone, not just for his or her supporters. But governing for everyone does not mean putting your neck on the block when a subversive group has their hands on the guillotine.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)The duty is to all, understanding that those who follow are culpable but also victims of deceitful leaders.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)(This post is a duplicate sorta, that disappeared and showed up now. I'm leaving it because of the discussion of election theft. And because I'm angry at the hypocrisy that RW hostiles don't need to be served but LW hostiles are all good citizens neglected by uncaring corporatists.)
And since you raise the point, it's not THOSE people who sabotaged Democrats; most were always going to vote against if they voted.
It was the dissident/Sanders left who knew Russia, RW-supporting MSM, RW plutocrats, and the Republican machine were using them to elect Trump/Republicans. They all knew he was being promoted as a splinter candidate to defeat the Democratic Party, invaluable assistance which lifted him from obscurity to a false appearance of viability that was never real. None of them ever warned those who trusted them that they were being used to defeat progressive government, national healthcare included.
In ANY case, Hillary and other Democrats had the same duty to appear where LW zealots who hoped for primary election theft, every bit as free of compunction or concern for democracy as RW zealots, could be reached. They're Americans, thus the duty to serve. Even those who spit at it.
wnylib
(25,256 posts)to do things that will aid and abet people who would overthrow democracy for fascism? That is exactly what appearing on OANN or Newsmax would do because that is exactly how they would use such an appearance. It would also keep the divisive hostility alive as a hot controversy for those media to flaunt.
I can see that we will not agree on this so we'll just have to agree to disagree because I can't persuade you and I know that you will not persuade me.
Peace.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)know what "revolution" means? Revolution requires smashing the old and all those who fight to protect it, and both socialists and the Republican "organized conspiracy" and autocratic trumpists have to overthrow what we inherited to achieve their new forms of government. Both sides have their "bros" anxious to get to the smashing part. The Republicans/Trump are much closer because they're far more powerful, organized, financed, and, yes, ruthless. But neither are the unicorn fantasies of romantic imagination.
Speaking of "bros," how about noticing the hostile (and potentially violent) populist movements on both LW and RW that have been creating rage against whatever establishment stands in the way? Sure, Sanders' haven't gotten much beyond throwing a couple of chairs and vicious swarming on social media, but then his was never the side that was going to prevail. So a bunch of his bros just moved to the revolution with mobs to join.
Did anyone see attempted election theft in the past two elections because majorities wouldn't buy what the revolutionary leaders were selling?
Speaking of fascism, how about the question of how to KEEP the revolutionary ends when large majorities reject them every time when the choice is free and informed?
Name even ONE socialist regime that wasn't imposed on the people by what becomes authoritarian government using ruthless fascistic means. Guaranteed of course because socialism requires certain losses of freedoms and relative poverty at best (but disruption and decline are usually severe). Without authoritarian repression, what would keep Americans from just changing their minds and voting to return to a capitalism-based system (like what we have and those in Europe that are NOT socialism)?
Everyone worried about subversion and protecting the democracy we inherited really needs to understand the great similarities between the hostile extremist movements active in this nation. There are two, not just one. And our leaders absolutely have a duty to explain to all who are vulnerable to dangerous leaders what they have to lose and why they really want to protect what they have.
empedocles
(15,751 posts)RobertDevereaux
(1,992 posts)If by “go on” you mean “urinate upon,” then that’s more than fine.
BlueTsunami2018
(4,341 posts)The others, no chance. They’re not news networks.
LakeArenal
(29,941 posts)But not right away. Once this election is history.
If Fux continues to have Dump on as a guest- forget about it.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)
samnsara
(18,499 posts)
Hekate
(97,536 posts)highplainsdem
(55,852 posts)on the interviewer and show. It would be a complete waste with Fox's prime-time propagandists, or their morning-show morons.
