Why won't obama call out fox news???

[tigerbob]

Obama is doing 5 or more interviews that day, which based on what I have heard is a risky strategy to begin with, as at least two interviewers will probably go for the kill and attempt to get Obama to slip up. WIth this in mind, I believe Obama and his handlers rpobably weighed the risk versus the possible gain. Those who watch Faux News and their talking heads like Beck and Hannity already don't like Obama nor his policies. These folks are behind the tea bagging parties. What would Obama stand to gain by appearing on Fox? Honestly?

He wouldn't have people accusing him of ducking the tough interview.

While this may offend some of the FOX people, will not hurt his chances to get healthcare legislation passed.

That's probably true, but my point is one of principle, not politics.

That's also probably the last time I'll use those two words in the same sentence this year.

 

[VaYank5150]

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A senior administration official confirms that President Barack Obama will appear on five Sunday morning talk shows this weekend. The president will sit down with CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Univision. The official said Obama will not be appearing on FOX.


He said himself, the if anyone spreads lies about OBAMACARE, they he would call them out. Well, here's a great opportunity. But you won't see our fearless (well, almost) leader on FOX News this weekend fielding questions about the healthcare reform or ACORN disaster. Why??? What a great chance he would have to address the LARGEST news audience with an interview on FOX. Chris Matthews is harmless. We're not talking about sitting him down with Hannity or another uncomfortable meeting with O'Rielly. It's Chris Matthews for Christ's sake!!! ACORN's leader isn't scared. She's brave enough to sit down with Chris on Sunday. And I'm sure he will ask her some pretty tough and to the point questions. But strangely, Obama seems to be a little affraid to put himself out there. I guess it's much easier to swim downstream.

I'm just curious why the man who promised transparency and bi-partisanship to all Americans won't give equal time to the ONE network that challenges the views and opinions of the left? I mean, if I had a chance to speak directly to the audience that seems to be the most vocal and entrenched, I'd be telling Univision that I will try to get to them next time.

Univision???? Seriously???? How very patético.

Maybe because FOX has already proven to everyone smart enough to understand, that thye have NO desire to report fairly or even report at all? If FOX wants to cry about it (which they have not to my knowledge), they will need to clean up their act first.

As opposed to CNN, which has absolutely no liberal leaning whatsoever, right?

I dare you to put ANY of the CNN folks up against a Beck or a Hannity and see where they rate on the fairness meter.

 

[VaYank5150]

He wouldn't have people accusing him of ducking the tough interview.

While this may offend some of the FOX people, will not hurt his chances to get healthcare legislation passed.

That's probably true, but my point is one of principle, not politics.

That's also probably the last time I'll use those two words in the same sentence this year.

Let's assume he went on FOX. What do you think the Faux News interviewer is going to ask him that won't be asked by any of the other 6 network interviewers?

 

[txlonghorn]

Thanks for at least seeing my point.

Of course I see your point. I have no ax to grind in favor of Fox over any other network. But in this particular instance I'm saying that I think Obama's decision not to give an interview to Fox is not even-handed. The tenor of the questions he will face will undoubtedly be harsher on Fox than it would be on other networks. But that is no reason for him to duck the issue.

Obama is doing 5 or more interviews that day, which based on what I have heard is a risky strategy to begin with, as at least two interviewers will probably go for the kill and attempt to get Obama to slip up. WIth this in mind, I believe Obama and his handlers rpobably weighed the risk versus the possible gain. Those who watch Faux News and their talking heads like Beck and Hannity already don't like Obama nor his policies. These folks are behind the tea bagging parties. What would Obama stand to gain by appearing on Fox? Honestly?

OK...yank, I was enjoying our exchange until you started on the 'tea-bagging' thing. Do you know where that first got started? From the "fair commentary" of the left wing journalists. We all know what tea bagging is and personally, I'm surprised that such and offensive term was used so 'liberally'. Actually, I'm really not surprised at all. If you really want to instill credibility in news coverage, why not be less supportive of journalists who can't even cover the story right? Adding the offensive term of tea bagging to the story made me even more likely to disregard any coverage they would offer.

If the subject is the tea parties, then call it a tea party. If you have some fantasy about tea bagging...talk about that on your own time.

 

[tigerbob]

He wouldn't have people accusing him of ducking the tough interview.

While this may offend some of the FOX people, will not hurt his chances to get healthcare legislation passed.

Don't you think that the votes are pretty much etched in rock from our politicians? I know my congressman is a democrat, and he's voting no...why do I know this? I keep in contact with him.

I'd like to think that our politicians will cast their votes solely on the merits, but I won't hold my breath. If yours is voting his conscience rather that the party line he deserves a pat on the back. Hopefully his vote also reflects the views of his constituents.

That said, I think most of constituents have their views shaped my the media they consume. Vicious circle.

 

[VaYank5150]

Of course I see your point. I have no ax to grind in favor of Fox over any other network. But in this particular instance I'm saying that I think Obama's decision not to give an interview to Fox is not even-handed. The tenor of the questions he will face will undoubtedly be harsher on Fox than it would be on other networks. But that is no reason for him to duck the issue.

Obama is doing 5 or more interviews that day, which based on what I have heard is a risky strategy to begin with, as at least two interviewers will probably go for the kill and attempt to get Obama to slip up. WIth this in mind, I believe Obama and his handlers rpobably weighed the risk versus the possible gain. Those who watch Faux News and their talking heads like Beck and Hannity already don't like Obama nor his policies. These folks are behind the tea bagging parties. What would Obama stand to gain by appearing on Fox? Honestly?

OK...yank, I was enjoying our exchange until you started on the 'tea-bagging' thing. Do you know where that first got started? From the "fair commentary" of the left wing journalists. We all know what tea bagging is and personally, I'm surprised that such and offensive term was used so 'liberally'. Actually, I'm really not surprised at all. If you really want to instill credibility in news coverage, why not be less supportive of journalists who can't even cover the story right? Adding the offensive term of tea bagging to the story made me even more likely to disregard any coverage they would offer.

If the subject is the tea parties, then call it a tea party. If you have some fantasy about tea bagging...talk about that on your own time.

Fair enough. I will try to keep my anger with this group of individuals better in check.

 

[Polk]

You accidentally make the case for why the president isn't going on Fox. He's not going to sit down for an interview with GOP yesmen.

Yeah, no sense in being challenged and working to convince those who need convincing. Far better to sit down with some sycophantic Democrat yes-men who will ask the one question he wants asked and allow him a full hour to answer it finishing just before they "run out of time." But what does that really matter? The people that will see him on these shows already support his policies so they won't be listening to what he says anyway. They'll simply stare into his dreamy eyes and wonder about how great it is that this feckless, inexperienced neophyte will lead them to the promised land, it doesn't matter that they may wander the desert for many years, Dear Obama shall provide.

The people watching Fox News can't be convinced. Criticizing Obama for not sitting down with Fox would have been like criticizing Bush for not sitting down with Daily Kos or the Huffington Post.

 

[Polk]

What a great chance he would have to address the LARGEST news audience with an interview on FOX.

He's appearing on the Sunday shows, where Fox runs a distant fourth (Fox News Sunday had 1.31 million viewers last week, for example; the next lowest was 2.68 million watching CBS's Face the Nation).

I'm not saying your numbers are wrong, but I'd like to see the source. Even if they are good numbers, what about all the other times he has had chances???

I'm just curious why the man who promised transparency and bi-partisanship to all Americans won't give equal time to the ONE network that challenges the views and opinions of the left?

You accidentally make the case for why the president isn't going on Fox. He's not going to sit down for an interview with GOP yesmen.

So you're saying he's only interested in sitting down with Obama Yesmen...is that right?

I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but just because a network doesn't just sit down and read the GOP talking points word for word doesn't mean they're biased in favor of Obama.

 

[txlonghorn]

While this may offend some of the FOX people, will not hurt his chances to get healthcare legislation passed.

That's probably true, but my point is one of principle, not politics.

That's also probably the last time I'll use those two words in the same sentence this year.

Let's assume he went on FOX. What do you think the Faux News interviewer is going to ask him that won't be asked by any of the other 6 network interviewers?

1. Have you read the entire reform proposal? And if so, was there anything there that you have not addressed as fully as you perhaps should have up to this point?

2. What would or could you say to those who appeared on the White House Lawn this past Saturday that would ease their minds and concerns about the current proposed legislation?

3. There are several different ways to interpret the numbers that have been presented concerning the actual numbers of uninsured in this country. By what standards are you basing the numbers on that you have used in past speeches.

4. You say that you are prepared to call out anyone who makes false claims about the proposed reform. If you are forced to make good on that, what should the accused be prepared for?

5. If the issue over death panels was NEVER true, why was that portion of the bill that was in question removed?

6. ACORN....still in support of their practices???

7. If competition among insurance providers is one of the things you would like to see increase, why not simply remove the restrictions on purchasing insurance from state to state? Wouldn't this be a great way to drive costs down while improving the service to the consumer?

8. You use the term "stability" alot when talking about the reformed version of healthcare. Where do you see things stabilizing the most and how will it improve the overall aspect of heatlhcare in this country.

9. Should the woman who admitted to killing her husband during the ACORN video be arrested?

10. If you are successful in passing the current reform to healthcare as it is written today, how will it be paid for?



There's a few

 

[Polk]

Isn't it an interviewer's job to ask questions that candidates or those in office find uncomfortable?

Uncomfortable isn't quite the right word, but I get where you're trying to go with that (the role of the journalist is to question the assertions of those in positions of power). However, there is a significant difference between making someone uncomfortable, to use your word, and asking them if they still beat their wife.

 

[tigerbob]

While this may offend some of the FOX people, will not hurt his chances to get healthcare legislation passed.

That's probably true, but my point is one of principle, not politics.

That's also probably the last time I'll use those two words in the same sentence this year.

Let's assume he went on FOX. What do you think the Faux News interviewer is going to ask him that won't be asked by any of the other 6 network interviewers?

They will likely ask the same basic questions. The differences I see with Fox will be along the lines of:

• Not allowing him to control the interview by giving rambling answers that allow him to get his preferred talking points across (the Nixon technique).
• Pushing him harder on points where what he is saying is more anecdotal than fact
• Having plenty of examples ready that will undermine the points he is making, or at very least demonstrate the inherent difficulties of his proposed policy

So, not so much different in content to the other networks, but certainly less willing to take his answers at face value.

 

[tigerbob]

You accidentally make the case for why the president isn't going on Fox. He's not going to sit down for an interview with GOP yesmen.

Yeah, no sense in being challenged and working to convince those who need convincing. Far better to sit down with some sycophantic Democrat yes-men who will ask the one question he wants asked and allow him a full hour to answer it finishing just before they "run out of time." But what does that really matter? The people that will see him on these shows already support his policies so they won't be listening to what he says anyway. They'll simply stare into his dreamy eyes and wonder about how great it is that this feckless, inexperienced neophyte will lead them to the promised land, it doesn't matter that they may wander the desert for many years, Dear Obama shall provide.

The people watching Fox News can't be convinced. Criticizing Obama for not sitting down with Fox would have been like criticizing Bush for not sitting down with Daily Kos or the Huffington Post.

No it wouldn't. They're not TV networks. It would be like criticizing Bush for not sitting down with MSNBC.

 

[VaYank5150]

That's probably true, but my point is one of principle, not politics.

That's also probably the last time I'll use those two words in the same sentence this year.

Let's assume he went on FOX. What do you think the Faux News interviewer is going to ask him that won't be asked by any of the other 6 network interviewers?

1. Have you read the entire reform proposal? And if so, was there anything there that you have not addressed as fully as you perhaps should have up to this point?

2. What would or could you say to those who appeared on the White House Lawn this past Saturday that would ease their minds and concerns about the current proposed legislation?

3. There are several different ways to interpret the numbers that have been presented concerning the actual numbers of uninsured in this country. By what standards are you basing the numbers on that you have used in past speeches.

4. You say that you are prepared to call out anyone who makes false claims about the proposed reform. If you are forced to make good on that, what should the accused be prepared for?

5. If the issue over death panels was NEVER true, why was that portion of the bill that was in question removed?

6. ACORN....still in support of their practices???

7. If competition among insurance providers is one of the things you would like to see increase, why not simply remove the restrictions on purchasing insurance from state to state? Wouldn't this be a great way to drive costs down while improving the service to the consumer?

8. You use the term "stability" alot when talking about the reformed version of healthcare. Where do you see things stabilizing the most and how will it improve the overall aspect of heatlhcare in this country.

9. Should the woman who admitted to killing her husband during the ACORN video be arrested?

10. If you are successful in passing the current reform to healthcare as it is written today, how will it be paid for?



There's a few

I would be willing to bet you at least half of these questions will be asked. Maybe not in the exact form you have presented here, but asked just the same.

 

[Polk]

As opposed to CNN, which has absolutely no liberal leaning whatsoever, right?

The only really ideology driven programming on CNN is Lou Dobbs, so is a conservative. So where are we going with this again?

 

[txlonghorn]

He's appearing on the Sunday shows, where Fox runs a distant fourth (Fox News Sunday had 1.31 million viewers last week, for example; the next lowest was 2.68 million watching CBS's Face the Nation).

I'm not saying your numbers are wrong, but I'd like to see the source. Even if they are good numbers, what about all the other times he has had chances???



You accidentally make the case for why the president isn't going on Fox. He's not going to sit down for an interview with GOP yesmen.

So you're saying he's only interested in sitting down with Obama Yesmen...is that right?

I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but just because a network doesn't just sit down and read the GOP talking points word for word doesn't mean they're biased in favor of Obama.

This doesn't shock me at all. I expected that kind of response. The sheep always stays with the flock. And the flock always stays with the shepherd.

But if you expect me to believe that the networks he's appearing on are not pro-Obama, then I am a little bit shocked at your obtusiveness.

 

[tigerbob]

Isn't it an interviewer's job to ask questions that candidates or those in office find uncomfortable?

Uncomfortable isn't quite the right word, but I get where you're trying to go with that (the role of the journalist is to question the assertions of those in positions of power). However, there is a significant difference between making someone uncomfortable, to use your word, and asking them if they still beat their wife.

Indeed. I'm not trying to paint Fox as angels. Far from it.

 

[Polk]

No it wouldn't. They're not TV networks. It would be like criticizing Bush for not sitting down with MSNBC.

Except that for most of the Bush years, MSNBC had on as many conservative voices as liberal ones. Tucker Carlson had a primo timeslot, as did Joe Scarborough.

 

[tigerbob]

Let's assume he went on FOX. What do you think the Faux News interviewer is going to ask him that won't be asked by any of the other 6 network interviewers?

1. Have you read the entire reform proposal? And if so, was there anything there that you have not addressed as fully as you perhaps should have up to this point?

2. What would or could you say to those who appeared on the White House Lawn this past Saturday that would ease their minds and concerns about the current proposed legislation?

3. There are several different ways to interpret the numbers that have been presented concerning the actual numbers of uninsured in this country. By what standards are you basing the numbers on that you have used in past speeches.

4. You say that you are prepared to call out anyone who makes false claims about the proposed reform. If you are forced to make good on that, what should the accused be prepared for?

5. If the issue over death panels was NEVER true, why was that portion of the bill that was in question removed?

6. ACORN....still in support of their practices???

7. If competition among insurance providers is one of the things you would like to see increase, why not simply remove the restrictions on purchasing insurance from state to state? Wouldn't this be a great way to drive costs down while improving the service to the consumer?

8. You use the term "stability" alot when talking about the reformed version of healthcare. Where do you see things stabilizing the most and how will it improve the overall aspect of heatlhcare in this country.

9. Should the woman who admitted to killing her husband during the ACORN video be arrested?

10. If you are successful in passing the current reform to healthcare as it is written today, how will it be paid for?



There's a few

I would be willing to bet you at least half of these questions will be asked. Maybe not in the exact form you have presented here, but asked just the same.

Yes, probably.

 

[Polk]

So you're saying he's only interested in sitting down with Obama Yesmen...is that right?

I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but just because a network doesn't just sit down and read the GOP talking points word for word doesn't mean they're biased in favor of Obama.

This doesn't shock me at all. I expected that kind of response. The sheep always stays with the flock. And the flock always stays with the shepherd.

But if you expect me to believe that the networks he's appearing on are not pro-Obama, then I am a little bit shocked at your obtusiveness.

They're not pro-Obama. Before the health care speech, for example, I flipped back and forth between CBS and CNN. CNN was having a pretty calm and rational discussion. CBS had Reid and Couric spouting off the GOP talking points as if they were gospel truth.

 

[tigerbob]

No it wouldn't. They're not TV networks. It would be like criticizing Bush for not sitting down with MSNBC.

Except that for most of the Bush years, MSNBC had on as many conservative voices as liberal ones. Tucker Carlson had a primo timeslot, as did Joe Scarborough.

And now there's Keith, who is every bit as much the hack as Sean.