Vote `no' on snub of Fox News

It's true that Fox News has gotten ensnared in a trap it helped forge. Our national politics are now a nasty, polarized, scandal-seeking, sensationalized mess, long on heat and short on light, and Fox News, borrowing a page from the type of hyper-aggressive political campaigns Ailes once helped run, as well as from talk radio, has done more than perhaps any other major media outlet to accelerate that trend.

Among the worst of its recent infractions was the notorious story in which Fox News hosts brayed about a since-debunked Insight magazine story that claimed that as a young boy Obama had attended a \o7madrasa\f7, or Islamic school, in Indonesia, thereby hinting of an unspoken affinity between the candidate and anti-U.S. Islamic radicals and terrorists (CNN later interviewed officials who confirmed that the school has no religious affiliation).

Fox News later conceded that its on-air people were mistaken, but the admission arrived a little late. Real damage had been done. The network had recklessly broadcast a toxic untruth to millions of viewers who were just beginning to form impressions of a serious presidential candidate.

So it may be understandable why Obama and his people aren't willing to play ball with Fox News. And it's not like Rupert Murdoch's cable news network is the only way for Americans to hear the candidates live and unfiltered. Two Democratic debates have already been held, and between now and Jan. 31 at least nine more are scheduled, not including the two Fox News events, with sponsors including CNN, ABC News and the Los Angeles Times.

But the activists' battle cries notwithstanding, Fox \o7is \f7a news network, even if many liberals don't like the way it spins political stories. If Democrats get away with spurning Fox News now, there's nothing to stop campaigns from barring other news organizations whenever they feel like it.

Leading Democrats have in the past accepted its journalistic bona fides; Clinton and Edwards did separate prime-time interviews with the network in January, although Obama has been far more chary with his Fox News appearances. Fox News says Edwards has appeared on its air at least 33 times in the last seven years. When exactly did the network's "right-wing agenda" become so offensive to him?

The boycott is questionable on both tactical and strategic grounds as well. As the No. 1 cable news network, Fox News could provide a critical forum for the Democratic contenders. And as Mayer pointed out, the boycott will have the unintended effect of teeing up the eventual GOP nominee to make a noisy demand to meet his Democratic rival on Fox News before the election.

But those are matters best left to political advisors. The main point is that it's a horrible precedent to allow presidential candidates to boycott and pillory major news organizations as propaganda machines. Are politicians free to play favorites and punish transgressors in the press corps? Sure; remember that George W. Bush was caught on a live microphone calling a New York Times reporter "a major-league...."

Shutting down a legitimate debate, however, is carrying things way too far and does a disservice to all Americans. Movie stars such as Jolie can ban Fox News or any other outlet all they want. but those who would lead the nation shouldn't be able to get away with it.

scott.collins@latimes.com

--

The Channel Island column runs every Monday in Calendar.