Ezra's points here are well taken, especially this one:
There's a reason Fox hasn't approached the Children's Defense Fund, or the Sierra Club, or even MoveOn.org. The longtime slam of on Democrats is that they're a party composed primarily of coastal elites and racialized interest groups. The CBC, which is largely controlled by very liberal, old school African-American politicians, represents the Democratic Party in precisely the way conservatives would like to see it. It is the group most likely to unsettle Fox's basel, and so most likely to further Fox's goals. Small wonder, then, that Fox is so willing to donate their air time and resources to publicize the CBC's importance in the Democratic coalition.
I was almost tempted to fully cede the point. Certainly it was a bit hasty to write that Fox's "only" possible rationale was to fracture the Democratic party. But I don't, upon further consideration, necessarily think that this idea never entered "their" minds. It's a situation that Fox can't help but benefit from. If Democrats participate in the debate, then Fox wins. They win with minority groups and they win by making the Democrats seem like a loose pastiche of fringe (or at least disconnected) interest groups. If Democrats don't participate in the debate, then... Fox wins! For the reasons I layed out in my original post.
Either way, I don't think one can dispute that Fox's sponsorship emerged from one or a very few suspicious political calculations, and that, from a p.r. point of view, they know exactly how to handle every possible outcome.
Comments