Sincere question: Waste of time for President-elect Biden to go on FauxNews, OANN and Newsmax ?

[steve2470]

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 ?

[ProfessorGAC]

1. Faux, Not A Waste Of Time

The other 2, it's way too soon to consider.
It's just adds credibility to their craziness.

[empedocles]

7. Biden needs to be seen and heard across the spectrum - JB knows that

[steve2470]

10. that was my theory also

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]

11. That's Why I Said Yes To Faux

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]

2. Avoid them, marginalize them also by never mentioning them.

[TheBlackAdder]

28. Do a Trump: Only if they are 'fair.' Everytime they make shit up, they lose some cabinet interview.

[hlthe2b]

3. OANN? Really? Newsmax is hardly any better. Fox, maybe

[steve2470]

4. I only mentioned OANN and Newsmax because apparently more are watching them

I'm willing to concede that those two might be a total waste of time.

[johnp3907]

5. Yes.

Don’t legitimize them.

[NewJeffCT]

6. Fox if it was Chris Wallace or Shep Smith

doing the interview. They'd ask tough questions, but would generally be fair.

[steve2470]

8. Shep Smith quit, good for him! He is on CNBC now, I think

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]

15. I've seen it a few times and he was decent on it. Nt

[ehrnst]

9. Mayor Pete managed it quite well on Fox. Perhaps he'd be a good candidate? (nt)

[spooky3]

12. Agree. He's very good at handling right wing tools. Nt

[unblock]

13. Worse than a waste of time. We don't want to grant legitimacy or gravitas to propaganda outlets

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]

14. Sitting down in a septic tank with an earnest smile on your face does not alter the stench. nt

[Proud liberal 80]

16. No

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]

17. There is nothing wrong with appearing on FOX news. Newsmax & OANN would be a waste of time. n/t

[luv2fly]

18. Yes of course

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]

19. Waste of time to speak to the American people? Gasp!

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]

24. Didn't work out so well for Obama

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]

27. That's not the point. It's about duty, not just votes.

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]

30. I was referring to the obstructionism

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]

31. Subversive groups have their hands on the guillotine.

The duty is to all, understanding that those who follow are culpable but also victims of deceitful leaders.

[Hortensis]

29. That's not the point. She had a DUTY.

(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]

32. So you believe that it's a duty

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]

33. Anti-democracy forces are on the far left also. Do you really not

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]

34. Well put

[RobertDevereaux]

20. Yes, it's a waste of time and worse, WITH THIS EXCEPTION...

If by “go on” you mean “urinate upon,” then that’s more than fine.

[BlueTsunami2018]

21. Fox can be ok if it's with Wallace.

The others, no chance. They’re not news networks.

[LakeArenal]

22. I think Fux is okay. Maybe even necessary.

But not right away. Once this election is history.

If Fux continues to have Dump on as a guest- forget about it.

[secondwind]

23. Isn't appearing at these locations give them a burst of legitimacy?

[samnsara]

25. yes...send pete instead.

[Hekate]

26. Avoid like the plague. Joe will be POTUS. Surrogates may go if they have the stomach. nt

[highplainsdem]

35. Complete waste with OANN and Newsmax. With Fox News, it might not be a complete waste depending

on the interviewer and show. It would be a complete waste with Fox's prime-time propagandists, or their morning-show morons.

[mtnsnake]

36. Maybe Fox because it might be the only way most repubs will ever get a chance to "know" him