Should Democratic Presidential Candidates Allow Themselves to Be Interviewed on Fox News?

Minnesota Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar appeared to urge her fellow candidates to venture into the “uncomfortable” space that is Fox News, but is that a good move for Democrats looking to secure votes from a base that’s not particularly fond of the network?

On Tuesday night, Klobuchar concluded her interview with Bret Baier by volunteering that “One of the reasons I came on this show is that I believe candidates for office, whether Democrat or Republican, have to go not just where it’s comfortable, but where it’s uncomfortable. And I love you. Fox may not always be comfortable for Democrats but I want to make that point.”

That’s a bold suggestion to make in an election season with an ever-growing Democratic field of candidates who will be competing for votes from a base that had no love for Fox News, to begin with, and increasingly views the network as a propaganda arm for Donald Trump. But aside from a general distaste for Fox, there are legitimate reasons for Democrats to object to their candidates appearing on Fox News.

Before I launch into those, though, it’s only fair to note that Fox News anchors — and even their opinion counterparts — do some good work and tell some uncomfortable truths.

Chris Wallace frequently peppers Trumpworld figures with tough questions, sometimes devastatingly so. Fox News White House Correspondent John Roberts has consistently called Trump out over his attacks on the press.

Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade’s intentional and unintentional Trump call-outs have become an entertaining subgenre of Fox viewership. So have Andrew Napolitano‘s frequent, if loving, deliveries of tough legal news for Trump. And of course, Shep Smith remains a confoundingly factual presence in the middle of it all.

See? I can be fair and balanced, too.

One powerful objection to having Democrats interviewed on Fox is that appearing on the network benefits an organization that has a long history of harmful dishonesty, bigotry, and misogyny. This is especially persuasive in the case of individual hosts like Tucker Carlson, who faced an advertiser backlash when he claimed that immigrants make America “dirtier,” and who has been criticized in these pages for his “white nationalist leanings.”

Now, the prospect of California Senator and Democratic presidential hopeful Kamala Harris squaring off in-studio against Carlson and melting his face off like the Ark of the Covenant has tons of visceral appeal, and would no doubt be of tremendous value in defeating the ideology that he espouses. Is it worth it, though, to give him the privilege of such a showcase? That’s a tough call.

Harris has not granted an interview with Fox News, but Peter Doocy did score a brief walk-and-talk with the senator a few weeks ago. Here’s how that went:

The same could be said for the other Fox News opinion hosts, like Laura Ingraham, who, according to Mediaite, “dabble(d) in some hardcore white nationalist talking points” that led to a renewed call for an advertiser boycott of her show, or Sean Hannity, who faced a boycott of his own for promoting a conspiracy theory about a murdered DNC staffer.

Each of them could be handily bested by most of the candidates in the Democratic field, but could also reward them with ratings and legitimacy that they don’t deserve. And such interactions would pose risks for the lesser pugilists in the Democratic field, who could end up providing a megaphone for misinformation and talking points, or be maneuvered into delivering a damaging soundbite.

The calculus is slightly different for the Fox personalities who occupy the “hard news” space that the network has laboriously tried to delineate, but who have their own long history of sins for which to answer. You can search these pages for other examples, but there’s no need to go back very far.

In 2017, Mediaite Managing Editor Aidan McLaughlin noted that “If Fox News Held Itself to CNN’s Standards It Would Go out of Business,” and cited a report that Baier had to retract. And just last week, Mediaite Founding Editor Colby Hall called out “hard news” anchor Bill Hemmer for failing to correct the dangerous lie that New York and Virginia abortion laws allow that “literally when a baby is born alive, that they still can kill the baby.”

And in addition to the bias and misinformation, candidates would have to contend with the sort of bad faith that was on display as recently as last night, when Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) tried to explain why he would object to Trump raiding disaster relief funds to build his wall, and hard news anchor Martha MacCallum asked him if that was “because you don’t want the border to be secure?”

There are, however, reasons to believe that Fox News interviews could have tremendous value for Democrats. In 2016, Hillary Clinton appeared on Fox News Sunday after a years-long absence, and Chris Wallace “rewarded” her by obsessing over Benghazi and her emails. She may have acquitted herself well (I think so), but she probably reached very few persuadable voters.

In a post-Trump world, though, such an interview has a much longer life beyond Fox’s air, and the earned media of a viral smackdown is priceless. A candidate who holds up well to grilling in an “uncomfortable” place is demonstrating their ability to handle the eventual confrontation they will face with the Republican nominee. Conversely, voters can judge for themselves if they want to vote for a candidate who gets flummoxed by the likes of Baier and Wallace.

And if Klobuchar’s is any indication, such interviews can be tremendously clarifying for Democratic voters. During her conversation with Baier, for example, Klobuchar expressed qualified support for a Green New Deal, but also distanced herself from some specific aspects of it.

Klobuchar spoke out strongly and consistently in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. Klobuchar’s relative centrism may or may not be a benefit in the Democratic primary, but it was clearly illustrated here. Some voters might find Klobuchar’s pragmatism attractive (as I did), others might wish she’d have hewed more closely to the Green New Deal, and quibbled with Baier’s characterizations of it, but it was revealing.

Compared to other grillings, Baier’s treatment of Klobuchar was relatively mild, which is not necessarily a bonus. To me, having a candidate’s political acumen and policy expertise tested in the harshest way possible is more important now than ever. Two of the most effective and valuable political moments I’ve ever seen were interrogations, not at the hands of ostensibly objective news personalities, but by the most hyper-partisan of sources.

In 2010, then-President Barack Obama took questions for over an hour at the Republican House Issues Conference, and it was a brilliant display that stung Republicans badly. And in 2015, Hillary Clinton endured 11 hours of grilling from congressional Republicans, a spectacle that was both substantively clarifying and a huge political victory for her.

According to information provided to Mediaite by a Fox News spokesperson, the network frequently features Democratic lawmakers and officials, and the various news and opinion programs have cumulatively invited every declared and undeclared candidate to appear multiple times. The opportunity is there, although few have accepted.

If the Democrats are going to defeat the Republican nominee, they are going to need a candidate who can stand up to anything, and to my mind, that test is a reward for voters that outweighs the discomfort of stepping into a Fox News studio.

 

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.