GOP whimpering about media already

[Vandalshandle]

So, you think that Obama does not know that Charleston, SC is not on the Gulf of Mexico? I want to make sure that I know exactly what has your panties in a wad.

I just wonder if the Stuttering Clusterfukk knows which of the 57 States border the Gulf.

Well, as long as the Right continues to pay attention to these important issues, we can sort of let the little things takes care of themselves, like jobs, deficits, etc....

 

[Vandalshandle]

I think that it would be kind of sweet if the networks told the Republican party that if they are barred from participating in the debates, the Republicans will be given no free press exposure through the next election, in retaliation. I know that this would be against the basis of journalism, but there has not really been any journalism on TV since Walter Cronkite retired. As for me, I could not care less, since I don't get any TV channels.

 

[Trajan]

The GOP would have to take complete leave of their senses, which of course they do at times, to push for a Fox commentator as a moderator. To have a moderator that attacks Democrat candidates 5 nights a week and then moderates a presidential debate would be a gift to Democrats.

Presidential debates are a time when the party reaches out to independents and the opposition to gather support not to pander to the base. That's what you do in primary debates.

I was wondering what you were going to say, can you link me please to the gop telling the debate organizers they don't want fox btw thx.


and as to the rest? please you really need to get over yourselves, so basically fox is not worthy, becasue why again? they attack the candidates? no really? did you just actually post that?............is that your excuse as to why it passed with nary a word when obama hill and edwards boycotted a fox debate?


you know your value judgements on broadcasting as to who does and says what to whom? don't mean shit to anyone but those in the, as in 'the' bubble occupiers of each, right?

No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice. Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions might be. Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks. This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.

first- I don't know of even anyone here who puts fox on par with msnbc or msnbc with abc or cbs et al.


second- most Americans know or feel that the nets and cnn and pbs are slanted left, its a wash.

Now, if your contention is, that fox is MORE slanted there by yours less so, and are not qualified to moderate a debate, well, it must be nice to always shoot from the moral high ground, where in you own some special dispensation from the normal run of humanity, where in you get to sit in judgment and decide who's worthy or not, becasue you know, you're 'better' and get to accord 'reputation' as to who's fair enough or not.

Ergo- the franchise on fairness is yours....



You guys, man oh man, talk about arrogance.

 

[Trajan]

I think that it would be kind of sweet if the networks told the Republican party that if they are barred from participating in the debates, the Republicans will be given no free press exposure through the next election, in retaliation. I know that this would be against the basis of journalism, but there has not really been any journalism on TV since Walter Cronkite retired. As for me, I could not care less, since I don't get any TV channels.

hey why cut the baby in half? just outlaw them...

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice. Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions might be. Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks. This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.

Dude, you have a picture of Josef Goebbels as your avatar. Clearly your bias is such that pronouncement like the preceding are a farce.

Standard Disclaimer: Yes, it's Edward Murrow - the American version of Goebbels...

 

[Missourian]

No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice. Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions might be. Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks. This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.

Dude, you have a picture of Josef Goebbels as your avatar. Clearly your bias is such that pronouncement like the preceding are a farce.

Standard Disclaimer: Yes, it's Edward Murrow - the American version of Goebbels...

I thought it was Humphrey Bogart.

 

[Flopper]

I was wondering what you were going to say, can you link me please to the gop telling the debate organizers they don't want fox btw thx.


and as to the rest? please you really need to get over yourselves, so basically fox is not worthy, becasue why again? they attack the candidates? no really? did you just actually post that?............is that your excuse as to why it passed with nary a word when obama hill and edwards boycotted a fox debate?


you know your value judgements on broadcasting as to who does and says what to whom? don't mean shit to anyone but those in the, as in 'the' bubble occupiers of each, right?

No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice. Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions might be. Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks. This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.

What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?

I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public. I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator. A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.

 

[Trajan]

No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice. Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions might be. Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks. This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.

What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?

I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public. I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator. A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.

Like oh, gwenn ifill? and no, bob never made derogatory comments ala bush et al....my god dude, check yourself into rehab, seriously.


I am still waiting on that information Oh, and the committee is packed, jesus christ you cannot even keep track of your own machine who sets the rules? the gop is always at a disadvantage and takes what they can get because the nets are the nets, they don't have choice, they are offered the roll and have to select someone, for gods sake

 

[Wry Catcher]

This was copied, I suspect, from a Libertarian source; it is demagoguery at its finest.

Well, why don't you find that source. porky? Put it in Google, if you're right, it should return a link,,

And how is this "demagoguery?" Do you even know what the word means? I suspect not.

Your question is evidence you have no idea of what demagoguery means.

It does not describe the Government of the United States, but a government which is totalitarian.

You asked me to define leftism, sporky - not the United Stated government. My answer is an accurate portrayal of the goals of the left for governance, spunky.


Red Herring

Your side whines about the IRS not treating the Tea Party Fairly yet objects to efforts to level the playing field in employment and educational opportunity. Your side defines the left as anyone or idea which conflicts with the dogmatic ideology they hold.

Non sequitur.

In your opinion, yet spot on!

While gross corruption withing the IRS, an agency not bound by constitutional constraints such as the assumption of innocence, should be a concern to anyone even approaching sentience, it is not germane to the topic at hand.

An allegation not sustained.

Now had you asked me to define USMB leftists, I could have answered with a single word;

Lowbrow.

Lowbrow: "a person who is uninterested, uninvolved, or uneducated in intellectual activities or pursuits". LOL, apparently you've not read posts by CrusaderFrank, Willow Tree, Staphanie, Daveman, Warrior, Ladygunslinger, Rottwieller, katzndogz, the Rabbi, Lumpy 1, or a dozen others.

 

[Flopper]

What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?

I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public. I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator. A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.

Like oh, gwenn ifill? and no, bob never made derogatory comments ala bush et al....my god dude, check yourself into rehab, seriously.


I am still waiting on that information Oh, and the committee is packed, jesus christ you cannot even keep track of your own machine who sets the rules? the gop is always at a disadvantage and takes what they can get because the nets are the nets, they don't have choice, they are offered the roll and have to select someone, for gods sake

Bob Schieffer is a long-time personal friend of George Bush. Schieffer used to play golf with Bush. He used to go to ball games with Bush. The two men even went to spring training together - And Schieffer’s brother, Tom Schieffer, is a long-time, close business associate of Bush. I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

How can you say the commission is packed? The two major political parties control the presidential debates through the Commission on Presidential Debates. The commission has been headed since its inception by former chairs of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee. All the debate issues including selection of the moderator are approved by both sides.

You're so far to the Right that the Center is too liberal for you.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice. Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions might be. Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks. This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.

What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?

I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public. I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator. A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.

I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media. As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.

The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire

 

[Dot Com]

RNC still ?

 

[Flopper]

What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?

I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public. I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator. A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.

I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media. As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.

The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire

Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments. However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators. Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.

I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are. However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.

Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight. This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public. I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator. A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.

I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media. As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.

The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire

Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments. However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators. Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.

I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are. However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.

Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight. This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.

I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody. Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.

 

[Edgetho]

An example, one of many thousands, of how the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM helps dimocrap scum.....


Ace ~


The AP took it upon themselves to cover for the dear leader.

AP's Russ Bynum Covers Up Obama's 'Gulf Ports' Gaffe | NewsBusters

What Obama said:

THE PRESIDENT: I don't know. As you know, for the last three years, I’ve said, let’s work together. Let’s find a financing mechanism and let’s go ahead and fix our bridges, fix our roads, sewer systems, our ports. The Panama is being widened so that these big supertankers can come in. Now, that will be finished in 2015. If we don't deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina, or Savannah, Georgia, or Jacksonville, Florida — if we don't do that, those ships are going to go someplace else. And we’ll lose jobs. Businesses won’t locate here.

What AP reported:

"If we don't deepen our ports all along the Gulf — (and in) places like Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, Fla. — if we don't do that, these ships are going to go someplace else and we'll lose jobs," Obama said.

Does anyone think the AP would have afforded the Republicans the same courtesy?

Its really not a 'minor' deal. Not when it's done thousands of times

Synthoholic saw fit to neg me yesterday for this post.

But a LOT of folks have picked up on it.

Yesterday, we reported on Obama’s geography gaffe.

Obama said the following:

“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf – places like Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, Fla. – if we don’t do that, these ships are going to go someplace else and we’ll lose jobs.”

The ports are not on the Gulf but on the East Coast.

However, the AP added words, covering up the gaffe:

“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf – (and in) places like Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, Fla. – if we don’t do that, these ships are going to go someplace else and we’ll lose jobs.”

This afternoon, AP corrected the wording, but made no apology for the cya for Obama.

Michelle Malkin ✔ [MENTION=20856]Michelle[/MENTION]malkin

Thanks to @TwitchyTeam RT @SpeakWithAuthor: The @AP and [MENTION=39212]Rus[/MENTION]sbynum have issued a correction -> AP News: Correction: Ports-Obama story …
5:48 PM - 8 Aug 2013

- See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers


Edge:
It isnt so much that the Stuttering Clusterfukk made a geographical error (57 States) or even a speaking error (corpse-man)....

When you talk as much as that windbag does, errors are bound to happen.

So what?

The big "So What" is that the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM took it upon themselves, unsolicited, to correct an error by the POS-TUS in order to not make him look stoopid.

The LSM is the propaganda arm of the dimocrap party.

They are the Joseph Goebbels of the American dimocrap party.

 

[Dot Com]

I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media. As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.

The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire

Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments. However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators. Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.

I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are. However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.

Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight. This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.

I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody. Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.

Wallace has seemed to have gotten more even-handed. Now he asks tough questions to rw'ers on the Fox show where I don't think he did that a couple/few years ago.

 

[Annie]

The RNC in response to announced programs highlighting the probable Democrat candidate in 2016, announced that if the specials, including a 'mini-series' go forward, the RNC will not participate with those networks.

Down the memory hole, regarding OP title. Ostensibly, when a media individual made a joke regarding the rising fortunes of Obama, a state Democratic Party pulled the plug. As Reuters points out, this followed massive calls from a political group prior to the 'excuse' given occurring:


Democrats cancel Fox News debate | Reuters

Democrats cancel Fox News debate


By Dan Whitcomb

LOS ANGELES | Fri Mar 9, 2007 11:33pm EST

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Nevada Democratic Party officials said on Friday they were canceling a presidential debate co-sponsored by Fox News, following a joke chairman Roger Ailes made about Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

In a letter sent to Fox, Nevada State Democratic Party Chairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Ailes "went too far" with comments made the night before.

The letter makes no reference to a crusade by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org to boycott Fox, which it calls a "right-wing mouthpiece." Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards dropped out of the debate on Thursday, citing in part Fox's participation.

The letter also does not specify which comments by Ailes lead to the decision, but a Democratic source told Reuters it was a joke Ailes made about Obama and President Bush during a speech on Thursday night.

"We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments," Collins and Reid said in the letter. "We take no pleasure in this, but it the only course of action."

Fox News Vice President David Rhodes responded with a written statement criticizing the Democrats for caving in to MoveOn.org.

"News organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus, which appears to be controlled by radical fringe out-of-state interest groups, not the Democratic Party," David Rhodes said in the statement.

"In the past, MoveOn.org has said they 'own' the Democratic Party. While most Democrats don't agree with that, its clearly the case in Nevada," he said.

The joke by Ailes came during a speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation First Amendment Dinner on Thursday night and -- while playing on similarity between Obama's name and Osama Bin Laden -- appears to be directed more at Bush than the senator.

"It's true that Barack Obama is on the move," Ailes said during the speech. "I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said 'Why can't we catch this guy?'"

During his remarks, Ailes also took indirect swipes at both MoveOn.org and Edwards, saying pressure groups were now urging candidates to "only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage."

Though he didn't refer to Edwards by name, Ailes said "any candidate of either party who cannot answer direct, simple, even tough questions from any journalist runs a real risk of losing the voters."

 

[Uncensored2008]

I thought it was Humphrey Bogart.

Ooops..

 

[Vandalshandle]

"The big "So What" is that the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM took it upon themselves, unsolicited, to correct an error by the POS-TUS in order to not make him look stoopid.

The LSM is the propaganda arm of the dimocrap party.

They are the Joseph Goebbels of the American dimocrap party."

Edge, you really should grow up and get a life. Find a real issue to talk about, or a real cause to support. Chilidish stuff like this does not interest anybody.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Edge, you really should grow up and get a life. Find a real issue to talk about, or a real cause to support. Chilidish stuff like this does not interest anybody.

What a brilliant retort.

Yet what Edge posted it true, the DNC press is a brazen propaganda outfit that openly engages in demagoguery, demonizes the opposition, fabricates stories to smear enemies of the party, and cannot be trusted even on the most basic facts.

Why do you think the major press is failing? Do you think the average American has any faith at all in the party press? I don't mean partisan sycophants like you and Rdean, I mean the average person?