Liberal Media Bias At Debate

[red states rule]

I believe that's called accountability.

Should Republicans Boycott Debates Involving Democrat Media Shills?
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 5, 2007 - 16:47.
In the aftermath of Democrats boycotting presidential debates sponsored by Fox News, and the deplorable questions asked by liberal media members at Thursday’s GOP event, should Republican candidates consider refusing to attend any upcoming affairs involving obvious leftwing shills?

Before you answer, consider what a John Edwards campaign representative said in April when it was announced that the Democrat presidential candidate from North Carolina wouldn’t attend the September 23 debate sponsored by Fox News as reported by the Associated Press (emphasis added):

“We believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective," said Jonathan Prince, Edwards' deputy campaign manager.

Given what transpired Thursday evening, is there a reason why Republicans should give Democrat shills like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann a platform to advance their leftwing agenda while pretending they’re objective?

After all, it is the Democrats here that have drawn a line in the sand, and established this precedent. If it is now indeed acceptable for candidates to decide what media outlets are allowed to sponsor debates, shouldn’t candidates also be able to do decide what media representatives can participate?

This seems particularly reasonable given what the MRC’s Rich Noyes told FNC’s Neil Cavuto on Friday’s “Your World”:

Fox News had debates in the last cycle. A lot of the questioners brought in — they were not Fox employees — they were some liberal reporters like Gwen Ifill and Juan Williams, along with some of Fox's own people like Carl Cameron.

Exactly. As such, it’s not like the scheduled questioners for the debates the Democrats boycotted were Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Glenn Beck. Yet, they still backed out.

With that in mind, it seems logical in the next eighteen months before Election Day for the Republicans to not subject themselves to questions like “Is Karl Rove your friend,” “Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House,” and “What do you dislike most about America?”

To accomplish this, they will have to make it clear to the sponsoring media outlet which press members are unacceptable.

Isn’t it sad that it’s come to this?

http://newsbusters.org/node/12549

 

[red states rule]

is chris mathews smarter then a 5th grader.

Because a 5th grader could have asked better questions, with more intellegence and relevence then he did.

Giuliani Rep Complained to NBC News About Olbermann’s Debate Participation
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 5, 2007 - 12:42.
In the wake of Democrat presidential candidates canceling debates to be held by Fox News, it only seems fitting that similar concerns are surfacing regarding the inclusion of Keith Olbermann during Republican debates sponsored by MSNBC.

This seems even more appropriate given the disgraceful performance of clearly left-leaning media members at Thursday’s event in Simi Valley, California.

As reported by the Associated Press Friday, the Giuliani campaign actually expressed its concerns about Olbermann’s participation before the debate occurred (emphasis added throughout):

The Giuliani campaign would not publicly discuss what it thinks about Olbermann, or whether it had made those feelings known to NBC, a spokeswoman said.

But MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines said a Giuliani campaign representative had called NBC News to complain about Olbermann being part of the debate telecast following his commentary.

What commentary was that?

In an angry commentary on April 25, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann accused Rudolph Giuliani of using the language of Osama bin Laden with "the same chilling nonchalance of the madman" to argue that Republicans would keep Americans safer than Democrats from terror.

Shockingly, the article included some conservative views on this issue, and did so by seeking the opinion of someone that should be well-known to NewsBusters readers:

To one critic, Olbermann’s actual performance at the debate and in similar situations was less important than the message sent by his presence.

"It’s sort of like putting a professional wrestler in an anchor chair and saying ’he can do this,’" said Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog. "Well, he can do this. But he’s known as a professional wrestler."

Unlike the Democrats who have made a point of standing up to Fox, there’s been little public protest among Republicans about MSNBC’s use of Olbermann at news events. That doesn’t mean it has gone unnoticed. Graham said there’s a real debate among conservatives over how to deal with him: should he be ignored or loudly criticized, knowing how effectively Olbermann has turned Bill O’Reilly’s attacks into a badge of honor?

Yet, maybe even more shocking was the following conclusion:

Having Olbermann anchor -- as he will continue, with Matthews, for big political nights throughout the campaign -- is the MSNBC equivalent of Fox News Channel assigning the same duties to O’Reilly.

Fox has never done that, perhaps mindful of the immediate controversy that would result. Fox has tried to differentiate between its news operation and its prime-time opinion shows, even as its critics believe strongly that’s bunk. In this case, MSNBC doesn’t try to separate news and opinion people, even as it tries to separate news and opinion.

Amazingly accurate and unbiased assessment from an AP writer, wouldn’t you agree?

http://newsbusters.org/node/12546

 

[red states rule]

is chris mathews smarter then a 5th grader.

Because a 5th grader could have asked better questions, with more intellegence and relevence then he did.

Have you ever had the displeasure of seeing his TV program? The "debate" was about the same as that. He's annoying and rude. He's a liberal. I would expect nothing less.

 

[JeffWartman]

You are getting better at this

Time to start calling it as you see it

LOL. So "getting better at this" is just learning how to endlessly repeat Republican Party talking points.

 

[William Joyce]

How'd you like a world of Jews?

We've already got one.

I would like one nation for our people. OK, maybe a few. Is this so much to ask? I doubt you have a problem with Israel!

 

[Rosotar]

LOL. So "getting better at this" is just learning how to endlessly repeat Republican Party talking points.

They don't necessarily gave to be GOP talking points. That fetid vomit that Rush Limbaugh spews over the airwives will suffice for many here like RSR!

 

[JeffWartman]

We've already got one.

I would like one nation for our people. OK, maybe a few. Is this so much to ask? I doubt you have a problem with Israel!

But you are never clear on who "our" people are.

I'm Catholic -- do I count?

Or it is only WASPs?

 

[red states rule]

LOL. So "getting better at this" is just learning how to endlessly repeat Republican Party talking points.

So now the truth is Republican Party talking points?

I'll buy that

 

[red states rule]

They don't necessarily gave to be GOP talking points. That fetid vomit that Rush Limbaugh spews over the airwives will suffice for many here like RSR!

AT least Rush does celebrate the death of a liberals mother

You want hate - listen to a liberal talk show host


http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48466