Someone identifying themselves as “d’Oh!” responded to my post on the Nevada Democratic Presidential Debate situation (which I must tell you, I had fun writing). They point out the following article, written by Tom Gallagher, as a response. I shall cite a few lines:

Nevada Today - The debate about the Debate - a counterpoint on Fox

My point simply is this. In Nevada, and throughout most of the West, Democrats don?t win by preaching to the choir. No matter how hard you work, no matter how much money you raise, and no matter how fanatic the netroots may be - you don?t win unless you reach beyond the true-believers.

More. . .

So to those who are apoplectic about the Fox decision, I say this: if you haven?t put your own butt on the line and run for office, if you haven?t had your name and reputation out there for the attack dogs and mudslingers to slander ? take a deep breath. Is network purity more important or is winning the West?

OK, I’m not sure “Network Purity” or “Der Uber Channel” are concepts we’re necessarily going for, here. At the same time, I don’t think the George Costanza, “let’s do the opposite” theory of political science necessarily applies, either.

Just because you’ve lost by a slim margin in the past does not necessarily mean that you should therefore go drop trow for Fox News because they have a larger market share. I understand perfectly well the idea of spreading the word out to those who might not otherwise hear it, but the question is, at least in part: can Fox News be trusted not to impose its own agenda on that word? I mean, forget O’Reilly. Even the news desk stiffs can’t pass up an opportunity to shake their heads disapprovingly whenever a Democrat fills a headline.

Moreover, while Mr. Gallagher addresses this issue only in terms of politics, the fact is that a lot more viewers will tune into Fox that night than even their already admittedly large audience. That means advertising revenue, especially since so many people will be snagging snippets and putting them on YouTube.com. And how about all the other news organizations that take clips from the show? I honestly don’t know if they pay for those or not, but I suspect they do.

Does Fox deserve to be handed these extra revenue streams by the very people they already make a significant amount of money off demeaning in the first place? My personal opinion is no.

He says that the Republicans attacked him on every network they could. Fine, go tit for tat, if you like. Go after them on Fox.? Buy attack ads during the O’Reilly Factor, but that’s just not what this is. Hand them a fish, but don’t give them your ass as a lure.

Technorati Tags: Nevada, Democrats, Debate, Fox

powered by performancing firefox