Why Are Dems Scared Of Fox News?

[boedicca]

I can't watch O'Reilly anymore. He tried to turn to many stories into being about him.

 

[T-Bor]

Lets ask a better question...Why do you REFUSE to debate Maineman when he calls you out on most everything you post?

Dems say they will stand up to terrorists (despite their recent "Surrender At All Costs" bill) - yet they are afraid to debate on Fox News

What is up with the Dems?

So far no Republicans have refused to debate on CNN or MSNBC



Will Deal with Syria and Iran, but Democrats Won't Give Fox News 'a Platform'
Posted by Rich Noyes on April 9, 2007 - 13:08.
So it seems the position of left-wing Democrats is to deal with the terrorist states of Syria and Iran -- but don't deal with Fox News because it just gives them "a platform." As noted in an earlier posting, Democratic candidate John Edwards had a fine time and voiced no complaints after participating in a pair of Fox News-sponsored debates in 2003, but now he's boycotting the highest-rated cable news network: (Updates added at the end.)

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Friday pulled out of a second debate co-hosted by Fox News Channel, saying the cable network has a conservative slant.

The Edwards campaign said it will not attend the September 23 debate in Detroit hosted by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute, but officials added that Edwards is "looking forward" to a different debate hosted by the institute and CNN in South Carolina in January 2008.

"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.

It's the second time Edwards has decided to skip a debate because of its affiliation with Fox News. Edwards decided in March that he would pass on an August 14 debate in Reno, Nevada, co-hosted by Fox News and the Nevada Democratic Party.

UPDATE: I've been reminded that the GOP presidential candidates are debating at the Reagan Presidential Library next month, with MSNBC -- the network of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann -- doing the honors. As far as I know, there are no plans for the Republican candidates to flee the scene to protect themselves from MSNBC's bias (would you really want a president who couldn't stand up to Chris Matthews?), and you could imagine the rest of the media's reaction if there was an attempt at a boycott MSNBC.

UPDATE 2: In today's "Best of the Web" from OpinionJournal.com, James Taranto has an Edwards quote from just last week from CNN (not a network he's boycotting): "I think that what America should be doing on the issue of Iraq is dealing directly with both the Syrians and the Iranians, and I don't know precisely what Speaker Pelosi is going to do in Syria, but we as a nation should be engaged with both the Iranians and the Syrians directly in helping stabilize Iraq. Both countries have an interest in a stabilized Iraq. They don't want refugees coming across their border, they don't want economic instability, and they don't want to see a broader Middle East conflict. And I think it makes sense to not on some ideological basis not deal with them, but to engage with both of them directly."--John Edwards, CNN, April 3

http://newsbusters.org/node/11920

 

[Gunny]

I have the same problem with all the news outlets.

Like I said, when I wish to pursue a story to the point of becoming "all-knowing" on the topic, I'll go to a variety of sources and pick out the common denominators. TV news alone is just background noise in my house. The Weather Channel gets more play.

 

[Louie]

some of you not 'seeing' the bias in the coverage of Faux news is well, not shocking to say the least. Perhaps you would be interested in some ocean front property I have available in South Dakota?
:

 

[hjmick]

some of you not 'seeing' the bias in the coverage of Faux news is well, not shocking to say the least. Perhaps you would be interested in some ocean front property I have available in South Dakota?
:

I for one am not saying that there is no bias at Fox, I am arguing that there is bias at all media outlets. Conservative at Fox, liberal at the others.

 

[nuggetsoftruth]

I for one am not saying that there is no bias at Fox, I am arguing that there is bias at all media outlets. Conservative at Fox, liberal at the others.

Can anyone even give example of a non bias media outlet? Can anything truly be neutral?

 

[Gunny]

some of you not 'seeing' the bias in the coverage of Faux news is well, not shocking to say the least. Perhaps you would be interested in some ocean front property I have available in South Dakota?
:

You can of course produce for the audience an example of Fox News -- not any Fox Op-Ed shows -- presenting biased material?

 

[Gunny]

Can anyone even give example of a non bias media outlet? Can anything truly be neutral?

In a word ... no.

 

[Superlative]

Where does PBS stand?

When they broadcast shows on Frontline like "The Dark Side" and "Rumsfeld's War"

Is any news that gives a potentially negative viewpoit of the administration considered "Liberal"?



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/

 

[Rosotar]

Now if you said in contrast to the bolded that Edwards had said that he would not appear on O'Reilly or Hannity's shows, that would make sense..

It seems like Edwards should have the right to choose where he will appear.

Bush/Cheney and their gaggle of demented misfits have always been very selective about the crowds they subject themselves to. Notice how Bush usually only gives speeches in front of crowds that are bound to be sympathetic to him? He's not going to appear in a venue where he's going to be booed and heckled. Dick Cheney recently did an interview with Rush Limbaugh. It's pretty obvious that Limbaugh had his nose so far up Cheney's butt he was incapable of asking Cheney any real questions. Don't you think that is precisely why Cheney chose Limbaugh? He's not interested in having to answer difficult questions. It isn't about debate. It's about controlling the message.

Like I said....why do you think we'll never see Dick Cheney answering questions from Bill Maher?

Truth is, Edwards implying that FOX News is biased, really warrants proof, which they would not find.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/outlets/foxnewschannel

http://www.slate.com/id/2119864/

 

[Vintij]

In a word ... no.

Yes, C-Span.

About the other media outlets, if you allow yourself to be swayed by the opinions of the host, then yes it is biased. Main objective is to get the news out to the public though, most fox shows will have two commentary voices of opposing sides, as well as cnn....etc. I actually like to watch biased shows for news related reasons, not for guidence on political issues. I mean Bill O'Reily? He is so conservative it makes Ann Couture look like a Free thinker. (if you know what that means) Infact he is border line racist, but I watch his show to see who he will attack next as he is always on the offensive.

 

[Gunny]

Yes, C-Span.

About the other media outlets, if you allow yourself to be swayed by the opinions of the host, then yes it is biased. Main objective is to get the news out to the public though, most fox shows will have two commentary voices of opposing sides, as well as cnn....etc. I actually like to watch biased shows for news related reasons, not for guidence on political issues. I mean Bill O'Reily? He is so conservative it makes Ann Couture look like a Free thinker. (if you know what that means) Infact he is border line racist, but I watch his show to see who he will attack next as he is always on the offensive.

Bill O'Reilly is nowhere near as conservative as Ann Coulter. I most certainly haven't seen any racism from him. I have seen him push Jessica's Law and expose judges who let pedophiles off with slaps on the wrist; which, I consider commendable.

And yes, I do know the fancy name for athiests.

 

[Vintij]

Bill is very prone to making cheap political points out of normal everyday news. Ann Couture would kill all democrats if she had a big enough gun.

 

[Annie]

It seems like Edwards should have the right to choose where he will appear.

Bush/Cheney and their gaggle of demented misfits have always been very selective about the crowds they subject themselves to. Notice how Bush usually only gives speeches in front of crowds that are bound to be sympathetic to him? He's not going to appear in a venue where he's going to be booed and heckled. Dick Cheney recently did an interview with Rush Limbaugh. It's pretty obvious that Limbaugh had his nose so far up Cheney's butt he was incapable of asking Cheney any real questions. Don't you think that is precisely why Cheney chose Limbaugh? He's not interested in having to answer difficult questions. It isn't about debate. It's about controlling the message.

Like I said....why do you think we'll never see Dick Cheney answering questions from Bill Maher?



http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/outlets/foxnewschannel

http://www.slate.com/id/2119864/

The Republicans have accepted or rejected debates, but not on the basis of media. That brings a whole new variable into the equation. If one were to review all the MSM, CNN debates over the past 16 years or so, the bias in questions would be obvious.

As for your sites and commentary on FOX, sorry but they all are slanted to the left. Usually none of them would bother me, but in this context, not going to rely on them.

The very few attempts to provide controlled data, U of C and Stanford, indicated FOX does better at 'unbiased' coverage in news, not programming.
Get the difference? Maher=editorializing/entertainment; as do O'Reilly/Hannity

 

[Gem]

We can argue about bias in the major media outlets for pages and pages...in my opinion, however, the Democrats who pull out of the Fox sponsored debates for lesser known liberal-friendly debates like the Tavis Smiley debates are making a critical blunder that will come back to bite them in the end.

At this stage, the Democrats are running as far to the left as possible. They want to get the rabid left on their side so they can win the primaries...so they will spit on FoxNews and other "right-leaning" outlets in order to win bonus points with the left.

But eventually, one candidate will remain...and that candidate is going to have to explain to moderate America why he or she was too chicken to debate on one of the most popular cable news channels in our country.

Trust me...I know that they are not chicken. They know, just like most intelligent people know, that they would get a fair shake at a debate on Fox...Fox would be on its best behavior because they would know that the nation would be scrutinizing its questions just as must as the candidates answers. In fact, the Democrats would probably get a FAIRER debate at Fox than at other locations for that very reason. As I said, the real reason Edwards, Clinton, et. al. are shying away from these debates is to win votes from the left.

But don't think for a second that saavy Republicans are not going to jump all over the fact that the Democrats feel "above" Fox News. They feel that they do not have to answer to a news outlet. They feel that they can pick and choose what news to give preference to. They are elitist. They are insulting every single viewer who watches Fox. Edwards, Clinton, etc. are basically saying that because you might be on the right side of the political spectrum, you aren't worth their time. You are scum to them, because you don't tilt left.

It is going to be VERY easy for the right strategist to make this decision not to debate on Fox look like exactly the kind of elitist, close-minded, prejudice that the Democrats are trying to show they don't have. And its the moderates (many of whom watch Fox) that are going to need to be convinced.

Right now, the only thing the Democratic candidates are worried about is winning the left...so they are willing to spit on Fox in order to win brownie points. But eventually, they are going to have to win the center and a bit of the right if they want to win the White House...and I can't help but feel that this move - if the Republicans decide to frame it the way I described - is going to be a critical blunder.

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

Edwards and the Dems are scared they might have to answer hard questions and not softballs

Did you see that interview a few years ago where an UNSCREENED FEMALE JOURNALIST got thru the Bush "screeners" and actually started asking him REAL TOUGH QUESTIONS?? Bush panicked. It was hilarious watching Bush collapse under real baseballs instead of softballs.

 

[maineman]

"But eventually, one candidate will remain...and that candidate is going to have to explain to moderate America why he or she was too chicken to debate on one of the most popular cable news channels in our country."

ROFLMFAO!!!!! America will not remember a thing about these early primary debates. The winning candidate will not have to explain a bloody thing!

 

[Gem]

maineman wrote:

ROFLMFAO!!!!! America will not remember a thing about these early primary debates. The winning candidate will not have to explain a bloody thing!

Wow, its amazing that you have that much faith in the Republicans that you don't think they will bring this issue up again.

You don't think that Fox will schedule more debates - closer to the actual eletcion? What will the Dems do then? And if you think for a second that Republicans aren't going to try to make hay out of the fact that Democrats refused to give the most-watched cable news channel in the nation the time of day while instead catering to much smaller, obviously liberal venues...I think you are fooling yourself.

On another note...I'm a bit disturbed by your bravado about how the democratic candidate won't have to explain a thing - I think a man or woman who is attempting to become President of the United States SHOULD have to explain their actions...apparently you think that if it happens far enough in the past...the complacent Americans will forget about it and the Democrats won't have to explain themselves...its a frightening opinion to be so gleeful about - on either side of the political spectrum.

 

[maineman]

maineman wrote:


Wow, its amazing that you have that much faith in the Republicans that you don't think they will bring this issue up again.

You don't think that Fox will schedule more debates - closer to the actual eletcion? What will the Dems do then? And if you think for a second that Republicans aren't going to try to make hay out of the fact that Democrats refused to give the most-watched cable news channel in the nation the time of day while instead catering to much smaller, obviously liberal venues...I think you are fooling yourself.

On another note...I'm a bit disturbed by your bravado about how the democratic candidate won't have to explain a thing - I think a man or woman who is attempting to become President of the United States SHOULD have to explain their actions...apparently you think that if it happens far enough in the past...the complacent Americans will forget about it and the Democrats won't have to explain themselves...its a frightening opinion to be so gleeful about - on either side of the political spectrum.

republicans who would make a big deal about democrats chosing not to subject themselves to a Faux News "debate" format are not the folks who would vote for a democrat in any case.

democratic debates between now and the convention are for the benefit of democratic primary voters. I personally could give a shit if republicans chose not to debate on NPR.

the debate that will matter to me with a republican in it is the one against the democratic candidate.

 

[red states rule]

I really do not think that the other side slips as much editorializing in the guise of news as faux does.

when you say "some people say" and then start to editorialize what the network management wants you to say, it really isn't news.

Is that why CNN put a large black X over VP Cheny's face while he was giving a speech?

Or a CNN anchor said "good" when San Fran Nan told A Republican she makes the rules now and there would be no discussion over how a committee would be run?

I can list alot more of the open bias of CNN

Can you tell us how Fox News editotializes the news?