Libs Go Nuts Over Fox News

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
This is sure fun to watch folks. The nutty left, who claim to support free speech, cannot seem to compete on a level playing field



EDITORIAL: Meltdown over Fox

Network co-sponsors state Democratic debate -- oh my!


Hard-core liberals can't stand the Fox News Channel. Passing a television that's tuned to the conservative favorite forces many of them to close their eyes, cover their ears and scream, "La la la la la la la la la!" Then they dash to their computers and fire off 2,500 e-mails condemning the outlet, none of which are ever read.

But liberals' aversion to Fox News has finally gone over the top. The Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to let the right-tilting network co-sponsor, of all things, an August debate in Reno between Democratic presidential candidates. Party officials were serious about drawing national attention to the state's January presidential caucus, the country's second in the 2008 nominating process. What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?

But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon.

You'd think the deal called for having Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter mock the candidates between comments. No, even unfiltered, unedited, live debate between loyal Democrats couldn't be entrusted to Fox News.

The approach of outfits such as MoveOn.org is so juvenile it's laughable. Imagine if every political organization created litmus tests for news organizations before agreeing to appear on their programming. Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago.

This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism. So they attack their rivals' messenger with a reckless barrage of rhetoric that cuts down their own allies with friendly fire.

By Friday, the Nevada Democratic Party caved in to the lunatic fringe and beganseeking a more "appropriate" television partner.

Comedy Central, perhaps?
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Mar-10-Sat-2007/opinion/13078877.html
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,650
Reaction score
17,724
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
I'd put this in the "Don't Let The Door Hit You In The Ass On Your Way Out" category. The Dems just hurt themselves by demonizing a legitimate news outlet.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I'd put this in the "Don't Let The Door Hit You In The Ass On Your Way Out" category. The Dems just hurt themselves by demonizing a legitimate news outlet.
It is so funny. the left says they sup[port free speech and they want to get their message out - so why not debate on the #1 cable news network

Hell, if they debate on CNN or MSNBC - nobody would know about it because so few poeple would see it
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
I'd put this in the "Don't Let The Door Hit You In The Ass On Your Way Out" category. The Dems just hurt themselves by demonizing a legitimate news outlet.
Thing is they dont see it as legitimate. After all, how can it be when it actually gives conservative viewpoints along with liberal ones?
 

mattskramer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
5,852
Reaction score
362
Points
48
Location
Texas
Thing is they dont see it as legitimate. After all, how can it be when it actually gives conservative viewpoints along with liberal ones?
Yadda yadda yadda. And Conservatives complain that CNN is not balanced. It is the other side of the same coin.
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,650
Reaction score
17,724
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
I don't see Conservatives refusing to appear on CNN - nor the demonization that is promoted by the Far Left towards FNC.

The Left still has not come to grips that the media is far more democratized than in the past. The internet in particular has eliminated the power of their oligopoly in controlling what version of events is promoted.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I don't see Conservatives refusing to appear on CNN - nor the demonization that is promoted by the Far Left towards FNC.

The Left still has not come to grips that the media is far more democratized than in the past. The internet in particular has eliminated the power of their oligopoly in controlling what version of events is promoted.
Of course there are very few Republicans that CNN has on - for that matter the same goes for MSNBC

Fox News has twice the number of libs on then the number of Republicans on CNN and MSNBC - COMBINED
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
I don't see Conservatives refusing to appear on CNN - nor the demonization that is promoted by the Far Left towards FNC.

The Left still has not come to grips that the media is far more democratized than in the past. The internet in particular has eliminated the power of their oligopoly in controlling what version of events is promoted.
Course they have to be invited on before they can refuse. But I don't know why anyone would.
 

mattskramer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
5,852
Reaction score
362
Points
48
Location
Texas
I have seen liberals on FOX news. I have seen conservatives on allegedly liberal shows. Oh No! Some liberal democrats dislike FOX so much that they don’t want a debate hosted by it. Big deal.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Yadda yadda yadda. And Conservatives complain that CNN is not balanced. It is the other side of the same coin.
True, but then again they haven't ever pulled out of a debate. My guess is, if the Dems keep this up, the GOP will respond.
 

William Joyce

Chemotherapy for PC
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
9,758
Reaction score
1,146
Points
190
Location
Caucasiastan
True, but then again they haven't ever pulled out of a debate.
And, it's easy to boycott the ONE network with a right-bias. Conservatives or Republicans attempting to boycott the liberal media would find themselves boycotting everything but Fox and the Washington Times.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
And, it's easy to boycott the ONE network with a right-bias. Conservatives or Republicans attempting to boycott the liberal media would find themselves boycotting everything but Fox and the Washington Times.
We'll see their next play. The libs have lost it, big time.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
And, it's easy to boycott the ONE network with a right-bias. Conservatives or Republicans attempting to boycott the liberal media would find themselves boycotting everything but Fox and the Washington Times.
How can Fox News have a right bias, when they have an equal number of libs as they do conservatives?

On the Sunday morning talk shows, and on CNN, and MSNBC conservatives are always outnumbered by libs.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
I think there is an important question that needs to be asked here.

If the liberal candidates are too afraid to go on Fox news because they might be challeged with tougher questions, how are they supposed to convince us that they can take on terrorists or dictators?

With all the challenges that a President has to face, critical and even hostile media seem to pale in comparison. So why exactly should we give them bigger challenges if they can't handle the little ones?
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I think there is an important question that needs to be asked here.

If the liberal candidates are too afraid to go on Fox news because they might be challeged with tougher questions, how are they supposed to convince us that they can take on terrorists or dictators?

With all the challenges that a President has to face, critical and even hostile media seem to pale in comparison. So why exactly should we give them bigger challenges if they can't handle the little ones?
It might behoove the GOP to approach the most respected/logical members of the internet news consortiums from the left and right, asking if they'd be willing to prepare for and hold a debate. Uh duh, the answer would be, how soon?

Then take out advertising on MSM, cable, radio news programs. Podcast it of course. My guess is radio would be more than willing to air it live.

Heck the ones who watch the debates to begin with are those interested, those already familiar with internet news.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I think there is an important question that needs to be asked here.

If the liberal candidates are too afraid to go on Fox news because they might be challeged with tougher questions, how are they supposed to convince us that they can take on terrorists or dictators?

With all the challenges that a President has to face, critical and even hostile media seem to pale in comparison. So why exactly should we give them bigger challenges if they can't handle the little ones?

First of all Fox News is not a critical and hostile media toward Dems. Fox News reports the facts, and if a Dem tries to spin or ignore facts - they host points the "oversight" out

Unlike CNN compared VP Cheney to Darth Vader, Fox is a balanced network
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I think there is an important question that needs to be asked here.

If the liberal candidates are too afraid to go on Fox news because they might be challeged with tougher questions, how are they supposed to convince us that they can take on terrorists or dictators?

With all the challenges that a President has to face, critical and even hostile media seem to pale in comparison. So why exactly should we give them bigger challenges if they can't handle the little ones?

Now the Dems are packing their news departments with poltical hacks

Clintons Moving Shills Into News Departments Ahead of 2008 Elections?
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on March 11, 2007 - 01:05.

With the recent announcement by CBS that they have made ex-Clinton friend Rick Kaplan the new Executive Producer of the CBS Evening News, it was eyebrow raising that another fawning pal has suddenly been ensconced in a "new" position at an American news service.

The AP has announced that long time Clinton friend, Ron Fournier, is joining the newswire service to act as the watchdog for "accountability and governing".

"His primary responsibilities will be developing new approaches to political and election coverage online, working with AP's news, multimedia and revenue groups," Kathleen Carroll, the executive editor, said in a statement on Thursday.

Ron also will contribute to that coverage, bringing his sharp eye and multimedia experience to analysis and some new storytelling on this important topic. There, he will work closely with AP's Political Editor, Donna Cassata, under the direction of Washington Bureau Chief Sandy Johnson.

Longer range, Ron will drive a new coverage focus on accountability and governing.

Fournier left AP last Summer to work for an internet site called hotsoup,com, but got his start "...as a political reporter at the statehouse in Little Ark., covering then-Gov. Bill Clinton." AP helpfully reminds us that Fournier, "...covered Clinton's presidential campaign, moved to Washington in 1993 after Clinton was elected and spent 13 years covering the White House and national politics."

(See Fournier's farewell to HOTSOUP.com HERE)

Do you think this guy will be "fair and balanced"?

How about the loving joshing good 'ol Bill offered to Mr. Fournier at the 1998 White House Correspondent's Association Dinner:

And to Ron Fournier - you know, I honestly believe Ron Fournier is the only person who came to Washington with me from Arkansas who hasn't been subpoenaed. But the night is still young.

So, with Fournier and Kaplan, both close Clinton apologists, taking new positions in the MSM, is this the start of old Clintonistas coming back to the media to give Hillary some insider help with her emerging campaign?

Let's keep our eyes open for any other Clinton pals who just might "coincidentally" end up in new MSM jobs.

Interesting developments, just the same.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11337
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top