Well at least it should not be called a boycott. What am I talking about you say. Well, I caught part of Air America's Politically Direct and they were discussing the cancellation of the Fox sponsored debate in Nevada. The discussion included none other than our lord high poo bah Kos.
The host (I forget his name, sorry) kept referring to the Democrats "boycotting" FOX news. Now I realize the point I'm making is not the most important in the world, but framing and message are important and the term boycott seems to me to send the wrong message. Indeed it seems counterproductive. We might boycott a legitimate news organization for improper practices, but that does not apply to Fox. The point in fact is that Fox is not legitimate, it is merely a mouthpiece for the Republican party (in fact the farthest conservative wing of the Republican party). Talk of boycotting Fox gives them legitimacy, it doesn't take it away. Members of the Democratic party don't "boycott" Republican events, Democrats just treat partisan Republican events as partisan Republican events. And that is how we intend to treat Fox. Talk about freezing out Fox and talk about working only with legitimate news organizations (I rather like that. Just talk as if it is a given, agreed to by all, that Fox is illegitimate.), but please, not a boycott.