,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ Following the DNC's decision not to partner with Fox News, I'm seeing a lot of reporters criticize the decision. Their defense goes something like this, 'yes Fox News is horrible and propaganda, but they have a few good reporters there.' So, here's the problem with this...
2/ #1 Let's take what they say as true (more on that later). The problem is news division isn't an actual news division. It wasn't opinion side that sent a memo forcing reporters to literally lie about the temperature record on air; it was the "news" side: mediamatters.org/blog/2010/12/1…
3/ #1 Cont... Oh, and "hard news" guy that sent that memo telling on air reporters to literally lie about climate change was person that Fox News was having lead the debate negotiations with the DNC. But hey folks, some reporters have a friend that works at Fox, so all's forgiven
4/ Even the reporters that Fox News points to aren't exactly paradigms of good journalism. Baier did countless specials promoting bizarre Benghazi claims, misinformation and conspiracies. Benghazi defined Baier for years. But again, he's serious cuz he doesn't shit himself? No. 
5/ But the debating whether the 2 or 3 people Fox News points to as good reporters isn't the point. This has nothing to do with them. The DNC did not reject those reporters, they rejected the network as a whole.
6/ In current iteration, Fox News is a political operation; it's not a news outlet. And thing is, the reporters defending Fox News basically concede this when they acknowledge journalism at Fox News is disconnected from the network as a whole and only exists anecdotally.
7/ If reporters really want to criticize DNC/defend Fox, they should actually be arguing that DNC has an obligation to partner with a political operation to host its primary debates. I haven't heard this yet. That's really what this about, not the 2 people at Fox that are okay.
