Fox News thread:3-8-07 Edwards passes on debate in Vegas because Fox News was to be mediator

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: moshquerade

I won't flame, I would just like to see some statistics, besides your own obvious bias, as to the intelligence level of viewers who tune into the news on any of the major player networks.

Anna Nicole Smith--#1 news story for days on end.

'Nuff said...

Haha, exactly...

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: moshquerade

I won't flame, I would just like to see some statistics, besides your own obvious bias, as to the intelligence level of viewers who tune into the news on any of the major player networks.

Anna Nicole Smith--#1 news story for days on end.

'Nuff said...

Haha, exactly...

Any answer from you to my questions?

 

[johnnobts]

Fox employs more analysts and reporters who are open and honest democrats than any other cable news network. you libs have a problem b/c they also happen to employ republicans too.

as for why edwards is a sissy here, who wouldn't want to be on the MOST WATCHED CABLE NEWS PROGRAM FOR ELECTION COVERAGE? who wouldn't want to look tough in the face of tough questions? I'm sorry but softball questions from the "hardball" host at MSNBC simply won't cut it for this electorate for 2008. We want to know their views on important issues, not just how much they all hate Bush. Brit Hume is the perfect individual for moderating this debate.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Fox employs more analysts and reporters who are open and honest democrats than any other cable news network. you libs have a problem b/c they also happen to employ republicans too.

as for why edwards is a sissy here, who wouldn't want to be on the MOST WATCHED CABLE NEWS PROGRAM FOR ELECTION COVERAGE?

Someone wanting to be ona Fair and Balanced News Program which FOX definately isn't.
They should stick to Moderating Republican Debates as that is overwhelming their core audiencet

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: moshquerade

I won't flame, I would just like to see some statistics, besides your own obvious bias, as to the intelligence level of viewers who tune into the news on any of the major player networks.

Anna Nicole Smith--#1 news story for days on end.

'Nuff said...

Haha, exactly...

Any answer from you to my questions?

Hold your horses

I don't have statistics, I'm not a professional at analyzing this sort of thing, but I've read statistics in the past from study groups as to the average IQ of fox news viewers, and the IQ of people who use alternative news sources. I know that CNN and NBC etc were included, and their IQ stats weren't much better than fox, if at all.

What I'm saying is that people who just tune into fox or cnn or whatever tend to just let the news come to them. They're not concerned with the act of QUESTIONING the source. Questioning authority and being skeptical is a great sign of an active mind.

I understand your skepticism about my views, but I'm not lying.

I don't have bias, I don't enjoy either side of the political spectrum. I'm my own person.

That's the best info I can give you, sorry.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Fox employs more analysts and reporters who are open and honest democrats than any other cable news network. you libs have a problem b/c they also happen to employ republicans too.

as for why edwards is a sissy here, who wouldn't want to be on the MOST WATCHED CABLE NEWS PROGRAM FOR ELECTION COVERAGE? who wouldn't want to look tough in the face of tough questions? I'm sorry but softball questions from the "hardball" host at MSNBC simply won't cut it for this electorate for 2008. We want to know their views on important issues, not just how much they all hate Bush. Brit Hume is the perfect individual for moderating this debate.

If you think Brit Hume is a good impartial moderator, maybe you should watch him every Sunday morning when he reveals himself as an ultra right wing talking head. The reason why Edwards doesn't go on fox is precisely the reason why Cheney and Bush ALWAYS go on fox. (with one or two exceptions I think). They know they are going into friendly territory there, the same as Edwards knows he would be debating in a hostile forum.

You appear to be ignoring the fact that Rupert Murdoch himself has come out and said that Fox news is deliberately conservative.

I for one don't really have a problem with that as long as everyone knows what they're watching before they get into it. The biggest problem with Fox is that because of their commitment to ideology above all else, their journalistic standards are SHOCKINGLY low. Whatever CNN's faults are, they are generally a credible source. (note: generally). Fox news is simply not a credible news agency.

 

[dyna]

Hopefully Edwards doesn't take that mentality to politics. Oh that ethic group isn't important so I'm not going to listen to there needs. Oh that state isn't important so i'm not going to worry about their welfare etc... He needs to be a man and be willing to face whatever adversary approaches instead of being a whiney tard.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: moshquerade

I won't flame, I would just like to see some statistics, besides your own obvious bias, as to the intelligence level of viewers who tune into the news on any of the major player networks.

Anna Nicole Smith--#1 news story for days on end.

'Nuff said...

Haha, exactly...

Any answer from you to my questions?

There was a study that showed that FNC viewers were the least informed by a large margin when compared to watchers of the other major networks. They were completely wrong a variety of hotbutton topics at time the study was done. Some ridiculously high percentage believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11 I think was one of the questions. Don't have a link handy but I'm sure it's not too hard to find.

That either means that:

A. FNC viewers are just stupid.

B. FNC does a poor job at reporting the news.

While it's fun to think A is the answer, in actuality, B is the cause.

 

[FoBoT]

I :heart: FoxNewsChannel

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: moshquerade

I won't flame, I would just like to see some statistics, besides your own obvious bias, as to the intelligence level of viewers who tune into the news on any of the major player networks.

Anna Nicole Smith--#1 news story for days on end.

'Nuff said...

Haha, exactly...

Any answer from you to my questions?

There was a study that showed that FNC viewers were the least informed by a large margin when compared to watchers of the other major networks. They were completely wrong a variety of hotbutton topics at time the study was done. Some ridiculously high percentage believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11 I think was one of the questions. Don't have a link handy but I'm sure it's not too hard to find.

That either means that:

A. FNC viewers are just stupid.

B. FNC does a poor job at reporting the news.

While it's fun to think A is the answer, in actuality, B is the cause.

I have an uncle who told me everything you just said is wrong.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: dyna
Hopefully Edwards doesn't take that mentality to politics. Oh that ethic group isn't important so I'm not going to listen to there needs. Oh that state isn't important so i'm not going to worry about their welfare etc... He needs to be a man and be willing to face whatever adversary approaches instead of being a whiney tard.

Yeah, we'd hate to see him use the Rove strategy.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: dyna
Hopefully Edwards doesn't take that mentality to politics. Oh that ethic group isn't important so I'm not going to listen to there needs. Oh that state isn't important so i'm not going to worry about their welfare etc... He needs to be a man and be willing to face whatever adversary approaches instead of being a whiney tard.

Ah yes...gotta court that 29% that would NEVER EVER vote for you, just on the off chance they get amnesia (that or were forced at gunpoint).

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: moshquerade

I won't flame, I would just like to see some statistics, besides your own obvious bias, as to the intelligence level of viewers who tune into the news on any of the major player networks.

Anna Nicole Smith--#1 news story for days on end.

'Nuff said...

Haha, exactly...

Any answer from you to my questions?

There was a study that showed that FNC viewers were the least informed by a large margin when compared to watchers of the other major networks. They were completely wrong a variety of hotbutton topics at time the study was done. Some ridiculously high percentage believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11 I think was one of the questions. Don't have a link handy but I'm sure it's not too hard to find.

That either means that:

A. FNC viewers are just stupid.

B. FNC does a poor job at reporting the news.

While it's fun to think A is the answer, in actuality, B is the cause.

I have an uncle who told me everything you just said is wrong.

Here you go smart guy:

Link to Study

Who is your uncle, Dick Jones? You can't trust that guy.

As a general rule I don't spread FUD.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: dyna
Hopefully Edwards doesn't take that mentality to politics. Oh that ethic group isn't important so I'm not going to listen to there needs. Oh that state isn't important so i'm not going to worry about their welfare etc... He needs to be a man and be willing to face whatever adversary approaches instead of being a whiney tard.

Yeah, we'd hate to see him use the Rove strategy.

That sounds like a winning political strategy to me, you have to make those calculations to be an effective politician. Call me a pessimist but all the good politicians do this.

 

[marincounty]

Another gay porn star and male prostitute on Fox news. See, its ok to be gay and a prostitute, as long as you are conservative.

Cpl. Matt Sanchez who appeared on Hannity & Colmes to talk about an alleged incident of being called a baby killer by members of Columbia University's International Socialist Organization. So eager was Sean Hannity to embrace this "victim" of liberal hate (which Columbia, though it investigated the incident, never confirmed) that nobody at FOX News seems to have bothered to do any kind of background check. Or maybe they did and nobody cared.
As several gay blogs revealed late yesterday, Corporal Sanchez was known during his halcyon days as Rod Majors, a majorly well-endowed gay porn star. (Photos of Corp. Sanchez aka Rod Majors in action can be viewed here. I warn you, this link is NOT to be clicked on if you have minors around or if you're in a crowded workplace). According to Tom Bacchus, Sanchez was also a $200-an-hour male prostitute who advertised himself (here) as an "excellent top."
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/03/07/one..._gay_porn_star_and_male_prostitute.php

I don't know if David Horowitz knew Cpl. Matt Sanchez was once a gay porn star and male prostitute when he introduced him to me at last weekend's CPAC. But he did know that Sanchez was an eager yes-man, and a supposed victim of the campus PC thuggery Horowitz has made a career out of decrying.

For his supposed courage in the face of liberal cruelty, Cpl. Sanchez was presented with the Jeanne Kirpatrick Academic Freedom Award at this year's CPAC. Sanchez was the perfect vehicle for the conservative movement's ongoing attempt to wrap itself in the uniform, and to heap resentment on liberals for their supposed anti-military bias.

Soon, Sanchez was rubbing shoulders with the likes of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. Malkin posted a shot of herself beside the corporal on her blog. Sanchez was clad in full military regalia and Malkin wore a big smile. But Malkin is not smiling anymore. Like so many of Sanchez's boosters, she was mugged by reality.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blume.../cpacs-gay-porn-star-hono_b_42842.html

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Another gay porn star and male prostitute on Fox news. See, its ok to be gay and a prostitute, as long as you are conservative.

Cpl. Matt Sanchez who appeared on Hannity & Colmes to talk about an alleged incident of being called a baby killer by members of Columbia University's International Socialist Organization. So eager was Sean Hannity to embrace this "victim" of liberal hate (which Columbia, though it investigated the incident, never confirmed) that nobody at FOX News seems to have bothered to do any kind of background check. Or maybe they did and nobody cared.
As several gay blogs revealed late yesterday, Corporal Sanchez was known during his halcyon days as Rod Majors, a majorly well-endowed gay porn star. (Photos of Corp. Sanchez aka Rod Majors in action can be viewed here. I warn you, this link is NOT to be clicked on if you have minors around or if you're in a crowded workplace). According to Tom Bacchus, Sanchez was also a $200-an-hour male prostitute who advertised himself (here) as an "excellent top."
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/03/07/one..._gay_porn_star_and_male_prostitute.php

I don't know if David Horowitz knew Cpl. Matt Sanchez was once a gay porn star and male prostitute when he introduced him to me at last weekend's CPAC. But he did know that Sanchez was an eager yes-man, and a supposed victim of the campus PC thuggery Horowitz has made a career out of decrying.

For his supposed courage in the face of liberal cruelty, Cpl. Sanchez was presented with the Jeanne Kirpatrick Academic Freedom Award at this year's CPAC. Sanchez was the perfect vehicle for the conservative movement's ongoing attempt to wrap itself in the uniform, and to heap resentment on liberals for their supposed anti-military bias.

Soon, Sanchez was rubbing shoulders with the likes of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. Malkin posted a shot of herself beside the corporal on her blog. Sanchez was clad in full military regalia and Malkin wore a big smile. But Malkin is not smiling anymore. Like so many of Sanchez's boosters, she was mugged by reality.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blume.../cpacs-gay-porn-star-hono_b_42842.html

Jeff Gannon was there too(that would have been a great photo for hotmilitarystud.com), he wrote a piece for Salon trying to explain himself, but whatever.

Salon piece

 

[Fern]

John Edwards won't participate in a debate co-hosted by Fox News Channel and the Nevada Democratic Party

Who was Edwards to debate at this shindig, other Dems? (from googling a bit it was with other Dem Presidential candidates)

I'm a little curious how moderator bias could influence the debate. You're not debating the moderator. Does Edwards think Fox haa a personal bias against just him? Like Fox will try to make him look bad, but Obama good?

This debate is to be co-hosted by the Nevada Dem party, what are they biased too?

Perhaps I'm dis-remembering, but seems fairly normal/common for these type debate to generally have press thought to be from left & right as moderators. Like Brit Hume & Bill Moyer etc.

I can understand not appearing alone, and taking questions from an aggressive hostile network celebrity posing as a journalist. But this completely different, he would be debating fellow Dems.

Looks like a poor tactical choice to me, in addition to opening himself up to critism of being a wuss, he will be marginalized if the other Dem candidates show up and he is absent. Looks like a dumb move for a smart guy, but then he didn't handle the whole "blogger" thing very well either.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

The phrasing of the questions is the key. You can ask about the same topic two different ways, one that lets the person promote his agenda, and the other that makes him defend himself. It isn't so much as to who would win the debate, as to the sound bytes, etc that would come from it.

Moreover though, I'm sure this is a move by Edwards that he thinks will help him. Most people likely to vote in the Democratic primary hate Fox news with a passion, so... you crap on Fox news, maybe they like you better.

 

[piasabird]

Fox news is more reputable than the New York Times.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: johnnobts
snip.

If you think Brit Hume is a good impartial moderator, maybe you should watch him every Sunday morning when he reveals himself as an ultra right wing talking head. The reason why Edwards doesn't go on fox is precisely the reason why Cheney and Bush ALWAYS go on fox.

But a debate with fellow Dems, and appearing solo for a one-on-one with a potential hostile celeb/journalist are two completely diferent things, no?

Sunday morning is an op/ed show, and EVERY celeb/journalist is a human (I think). They all have their own private veiws on matters, and it's appropriate for them to promote them on op/ed shows.

When their doing straight news they're suppose to be impartial. Brit Hume does a decent job of that on his 6 pm (EST) show.

No matter you political leanings I would recommend anyone to watch the last portion of that show. The panel discussion (op/ed portion) is often pretty good. Mort Kondrake, Charles Krauthammer, Mara Liasson, Fred ?, Juan Williams, Jeff Birnbaum etc often do a good job in the discussion.

Just for the record I also watch Chris Mathews. (I can't take Oberman for some reason, he even bugged me as a sports announcer.) IMHO it's best to watch both sides.

Fern

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Fox news is more reputable than the New York Times.

Yes, Fox news definitely has more of a reputation for being bias than the New York Times. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

 

[OutHouse]

i like foxnews and i am not a republican.

I really enjoy listening to Sheppard Smith in my car when i drive home (XM Radio). to me he just reads the news that is going on around the country with his own style. The news through-out the day seems to me just news being reported. however i do not watch or listen to the the political crap that comes on in the evening like Bill, hanity & combs or Gretta.

As far as Edwards not wanting to debate because Foxnews is the mouth piece for the republican party.... I never have had much respect for Edwards and with a statement like that i have even less. what is he scared of? he runs from a debate because he doenst like the moderator? please thats weak for anybody who has thrown their hat in the race.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Fox news is more reputable than the New York Times.

The New York Times has won 94 pulitzer prizes. It is the paper of record for the United States. It is one of the more widely read and respected newspapers in the entire world. It regularly examines itself for mistakes it has made. Fox news is/does none of those things.

Do you care to comment on Murdoch's admission of partisan slant in his network? While you're doing that, please explain why this would make Fox news a reputable source.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The phrasing of the questions is the key. You can ask about the same topic two different ways, one that lets the person promote his agenda, and the other that makes him defend himself. It isn't so much as to who would win the debate, as to the sound bytes, etc that would come from it.

Moreover though, I'm sure this is a move by Edwards that he thinks will help him. Most people likely to vote in the Democratic primary hate Fox news with a passion, so... you crap on Fox news, maybe they like you better.

We know that Brit Hume or whoever the hell is moderating is going to make damn sure they marginalize anything the Dems come up with anyway ("well as you've seen, the Dems suck, so it's your patriotic duty to vote Republican, no matter what you think of the candidates"), not to mention spin anything that's said for days afterward ("OMIGOD--healthcare for everyone?!?! FSCK NO YOU AL QAEDA SYMPATHIZER!!! SOUND THE ALARM BELLS!!!!! DIE BITCH DIE!!!!") so this is going to nothing more than a big joke no matter who ends up showing up for it.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The phrasing of the questions is the key. You can ask about the same topic two different ways, one that lets the person promote his agenda, and the other that makes him defend himself. It isn't so much as to who would win the debate, as to the sound bytes, etc that would come from it.

Well, if any body is going to try and make him look bad it would be the other candidates. Again, he's not really responding one-on-one to the moderator, even if he's that has a first go at the question. I would assume a typical format where they all address the same question. As such, after the first has a go at the question they usually end up responding to each other.

Moreover, if the Fox person threw him a "skewed question" he should be able to gain big points with the party faithful for admonishing the Fox moderator for his "bias".

Plus, I've just gotta add that all polititions seem quite good at taking any question you ask them and using it to spout their talking points. Whether or not they actually answer the question.


Moreover though, I'm sure this is a move by Edwards that he thinks will help him. Most people likely to vote in the Democratic primary hate Fox news with a passion, so... you crap on Fox news, maybe they like you better.

Yeah, I must agree that he thinks it's good move for him, of course. He's a very calculating fellow. As far as crapping on Fox news, see above remark.

One last point. I thought the Western states, which have typically voted Repub and thus one must assume regularly watch Fox, were being heavily targeted by Dems in this upcoming election. Hence, Edwards appears to be contradicting his own party's strategy.

Fern