The Fox News Factor

I enjoy much of the American presidential election process, especially some of the traditions. At midnight on Election Day, the voters of Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, all fourteen of them in 2012, go to the polls, hoping to be the first to declare a result. By tradition, the presidential campaign formally opens when a candidate is officially nominated at the Party’s national convention, notwithstanding months of electioneering beforehand. The gatekeeping role traditionally played by three states, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, all with few Electoral College votes, plays an important part in the process because these states are bellwethers of potential. For example, in 1992, Bill Clinton was beaten by Paul Tsongas in the Democratic New Hampshire primary but the media declared him the winner because he had been so far behind Tsongas.

This year, Fox News has stepped into the election. Its influence may diminish the power of the early states in the presidential nominating process. In August in Cleveland, Ohio, a swing state, the cable news channel will host the first of several Republican debates, moderated by Chris Wallace and others. So far there are fourteen Republican hopefuls who have put their hats in the ring. However, not all fourteen, nor others who declare before 6^th August, will be permitted to take part in the debate. Instead, Fox News has decided that the debate will be limited to ten contenders, all of whom had to declare their entry before 6^th July and who will have to file a public disclosure of their personal finances in time to participate.

The latter condition is fair enough. A 1978 federal ethics law requires all presidential candidates to file details of their financial interests with the Federal Election Commission within 30 days of declaration, although the FEC will usually grant time extensions. Fox News has said it will not be willing to agree any extensions.

It is the former condition which does not bear close scrutiny. Fox has said it will use an unspecified mix of national polls to decide which ten Republican hopefuls will appear in the first debate. Apart from the diminution of power held by the states who hold early primaries, not to mention the romance of it all, what chance will there be for underfunded longshots, like Jimmy Carter in 1976 or Rick Santorum in 2012, to emerge by impressing the grassroots activists? The value of early primary contests is that the states concerned vet and test presidential contenders in an exercise in retail politics. These primaries are not a test of policy, they are a test of character. The Fox News debates may well change the game and minimise this valuable adjunct to the election process.

Limiting the field based on unknown national polls will turn the first debate into nothing but a popularity contest based on name identification. What if those 9^th and 10^th on the list are separated from 11^th to 14^th by a minimal percentage? Fortunately, some Republican candidates are raising objections. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina has set up an online petition calling for debate equality. He said, “If the cable news channels or political elite have their way, the media will have a louder voice in our nominating contest than actual Republican voters.” South Carolina’s Lt. Governor, Henry McMaster, supported Graham. “Excluding candidates [from the debates] based on national polling rewards name recognition for celebrity candidates and those who have lots of money to purchase national advertising.”

The concerns expressed are all the more pertinent as it seems likely that Donald Trump will make the cut for the first debate while sitting Republican governors like Chris Christie (NJ), John Kasich (OH), and Bobby Jindal (LA) might be excluded.

A debate when ten people speak will likely not be a proper debate, as people will either speak over each other or merely state fixed positions. It strikes me that adding another four contenders to the debate will make little difference to the process but will, at least, introduce fairness. Fox News might well be advised to change its entry rules. Indeed, I shall not be surprised if before 6^th August, Fox News faces a legal challenge by both those contenders who do not make the cut and the Republican National Committee, on grounds that the debate rules are unfair.

Fox News is the most watched news channel in America. However, it does not adhere at all to journalist standards of fair and balanced reporting. It has a right wing bias. In 2010, Elena Kagan was nominated by President Obama to a seat on the Supreme Court. Kagan had a superb academic record and had served as Solicitor General. Within hours of the nomination, Fox News put a panel together to discuss the nomination. One of the female panellists said: “I don’t know anything about her [Kagan] but she looks like a dyke. Therefore, she is bound to be pro-choice, support women’s issues and the like.”

One wonders how such a biased media outlet should even be allowed to produce a television debate. Is it fit for purpose? Perhaps the debate should be: “Will the democratic process of a presidential election be advanced by an exclusive debate where candidates are chosen by a News Channel?” Now that would be worth watching, especially if those candidates excluded from the debate muscle their way in.