GOP warns CNN/NBC: drop Hillary documentary/miniseries or be shut out of GOP Debates.

[Chaotic42]

Like refusing to cover third parties, and refusing to allow Libertarians into the debates.

Notice how everyone ignored this elephant in the room...

 

[thraashman]

When opponents of Fox News say that it shouldn't be taken seriously as a news outlet in part because of the constant, brazen partisan propagandizing of people like Sean Hannity -- hours and hours of it every week -- the response is usually along the lines that "the news shows and opinion shows are separate".

But if NBC runs one thingie on Hillary Clinton, they're damned to hell for all eternity.

Makes perfect sense.

Don't try to use logic with members or supporters of the GOP. They're fucking idiots, that's the reason they support the GOP.

 

[gloom111]

Don't try to use logic with members or supporters of the GOP. They're fucking idiots, that's the reason they support the GOP.

I've always found the difference between the left and the right to be that the right generally listen to your arguments before rejecting them, and the left will interrupt you in the middle of your argument and start screaming at you for being so stupid. The difference is that the left still doesn't know what the rights arguments are because they never hear them.

Notice how everyone ignored this elephant in the room...

I noticed. I'm not sure why Libertarians would want to be part of the Republican National Convention though. Or why democrats would care who is allowed to cover that convention.

As for the actual presidential debates, I believe that if a candidate has enough support, they are allowed into the debates regardless of their party. I'll cite Ross Perot in the 1992 election as evidence.

The Republican National Convention is for all intents and purposes, a private party, as is the Democratic National Convention. If they don't want coverage from a variety of sources...well, it is their party. They can't stop CNN or NBC from reporting on it, and they aren't trying to. All they can do is refuse them entry, which is what they are threatening to do. I would however, suggest that if they wanted to follow through on this threat that they should forgo the 4 million dollar public grant allowed them for convention funding.

 

[ivwshane]

I've always found the difference between the left and the right to be that the right generally listen to your arguments before rejecting them, and the left will interrupt you in the middle of your argument and start screaming at you for being so stupid. The difference is that the left still doesn't know what the rights arguments are because they never hear them.

I noticed. I'm not sure why Libertarians would want to be part of the Republican National Convention though. Or why democrats would care who is allowed to cover that convention.

As for the actual presidential debates, I believe that if a candidate has enough support, they are allowed into the debates regardless of their party. I'll cite Ross Perot in the 1992 election as evidence.

The Republican National Convention is for all intents and purposes, a private party, as is the Democratic National Convention. If they don't want coverage from a variety of sources...well, it is their party. They can't stop CNN or NBC from reporting on it, and they aren't trying to. All they can do is refuse them entry, which is what they are threatening to do. I would however, suggest that if they wanted to follow through on this threat that they should forgo the 4 million dollar public grant allowed them for convention funding.

Lol, I guess you've never watched a heated bill oreilly interview. I guess you haven't been on this forum enough to see the endless parade of straw man arguments the righties use.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

FOX should do a Rick Santorum documentary. They could call it "Butt Goo".

 

[Ryan]

I've always found the difference between the left and the right to be that the right generally listen to your arguments before rejecting them, and the left will interrupt you in the middle of your argument and start screaming at you for being so stupid. The difference is that the left still doesn't know what the rights arguments are because they never hear them.

I noticed. I'm not sure why Libertarians would want to be part of the Republican National Convention though. Or why democrats would care who is allowed to cover that convention.

As for the actual presidential debates, I believe that if a candidate has enough support, they are allowed into the debates regardless of their party. I'll cite Ross Perot in the 1992 election as evidence.

The Republican National Convention is for all intents and purposes, a private party, as is the Democratic National Convention. If they don't want coverage from a variety of sources...well, it is their party. They can't stop CNN or NBC from reporting on it, and they aren't trying to. All they can do is refuse them entry, which is what they are threatening to do. I would however, suggest that if they wanted to follow through on this threat that they should forgo the 4 million dollar public grant allowed them for convention funding.

Isn't this exactly what the right is doing to NBC and CNN? They know no details about the stories (other than the fact that they're about Clinton), have no idea how it will portray Mrs. Clinton...and yet, they are calling for it's dismissal without anything ever seeing the light of day......:hmm:

 

[gloom111]

Lol, I guess you've never watched a heated bill oreilly interview. I guess you haven't been on this forum enough to see the endless parade of straw man arguments the righties use.

Not a fan, though for what it's worth, Oreilly claims to be non-partisan. I've seen more people getting cut off on ABC and NBC by political talk show hosts than I have on Fox. I won't argue that the talk show hosts on Fox don't cut in when someone who is supposedly being interviewed goes into a rant and won't let the host get a word in edge wise, but that's their job. I'd expect the same treatment from the left and have seen it. People don't watch a political talk show to see a guest rant at the camera for thirty minutes straight. Not those on the right, nor those on the left.

As for straw man arguments...This is what comes from not listening. The folks on the right don't see them as straw man arguments, they see them as legitimate concerns. What the left refuses to acknowledge is that people have different viewpoints, and they are entitled to those viewpoints even if those viewpoints conflict with the ones the left champion. We may all be Americans, but we weren't all born in the same place with the same ethical and moral beliefs. Tolerance and diversity, I hear these words, but I don't see them practiced. Just because someone disagrees with someone else doesn't make them stupid or ignorant.

 

[gloom111]

Isn't this exactly what the right is doing to NBC and CNN? They know no details about the stories (other than the fact that they're about Clinton), have no idea how it will portray Mrs. Clinton...and yet, they are calling for it's dismissal without anything ever seeing the light of day......:hmm:

Read the rest of the post.

But for the sake of argument, how do you think these networks will portray Hillary Rodham Clinton?

 

[Patranus]

The GOP should boycott CNN out of the debates for allowing the wise and beautiful woman from CNN to interject herself factually inaccurate opinion into the presidential debate.

 

[gloom111]

The GOP should boycott CNN out of the debates for allowing the wise and beautiful woman from CNN to interject herself factually inaccurate opinion into the presidential debate.

Not possible, and not feasible. Outside of that, CNN was one of the networks that refused to have press conferences at the White House when they decided to refuse Fox News entrance. What the GOP does at their convention is one thing, to try to interfere with CNN being at the debates is a different story. I would agree that the GOP should refuse to participate in a debate with a CNN moderator however.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Not possible, and not feasible. Outside of that, CNN was one of the networks that refused to have press conferences at the White House when they decided to refuse Fox News entrance. What the GOP does at their convention is one thing, to try to interfere with CNN being at the debates is a different story. I would agree that the GOP should refuse to participate in a debate with a CNN moderator however.

Ya, wouldn't want cnn to ask a question that makes one of the canidates look like a dumbass.

 

[gloom111]

Ya, wouldn't want cnn to ask a question that makes one of the canidates look like a dumbass.

I wouldn't want CNN or any other agency to once again influence a debate with factually incorrect information. I wouldn't want ANY debate moderator to make ANY candidate look like a dumbass regardless of whether the information is factual or not. That isn't their job. It's a bad precedent, and believe me when I say that if it stands, it will work in both directions. Do we want a serious debate? Or are we just looking for entertainment? Let the moderators play games and you may as well just cancel the debates all together and enjoy the political infomercials.

 

[BlueWolf47]

I wouldn't want CNN or any other agency to once again influence a debate with factually incorrect information. I wouldn't want ANY debate moderator to make ANY candidate look like a dumbass regardless of whether the information is factual or not. That isn't their job. It's a bad precedent, and believe me when I say that if it stands, it will work in both directions. Do we want a serious debate? Or are we just looking for entertainment? Let the moderators play games and you may as well just cancel the debates all together and enjoy the political infomercials.

You shouldn't worry about the questions being asked. It's the answers from the GOP canidates that provide us with so much entertainment.

 

[hans030390]

Really, you have to attach this to Fox News? Simply can't have a sane, level headed, and quite frankly, obvious conclusion without the Fox News label.

If you wanted to bash on Fox News yet again, why not just title the thread accordingly and include in your OP instead of beating around the bush.

Wow, you really didn't understand the simple point he made. Congrats! Maybe he should have spelled every letter out for you?

I'll take Using Your Brain for $1000!

"What is basic comprehension?"

I don't know, but it sounds inconvenient.

I've always found the difference between the left and the right to be that the right generally listen to your arguments before rejecting them, and the left will interrupt you in the middle of your argument and start screaming at you for being so stupid. The difference is that the left still doesn't know what the rights arguments are because they never hear them.

Interesting, because I've always the exact opposite OR everyone acting like complete, uncivil retards.

Obviously my experiences outweigh yours 1000 fold because I say so and because I am always right.

 

[nextJin]

A few things here;

- This is airing early enough to prevent the FCC from questioning it
- Her career is far from over, this is not a dedication miniseries on her life
- This is a fictional miniseries
- This is not part of some hosts program, this will have it's own timeslot.

In my opinion they should question this, it's blatantly obvious what is going on. All four of those points are damning in my view. She is already going to have a tough enough time as it is with the inevitable attack ads that the GOP is going to throw her way but having a fictional docu-drama with what amounts to Hillary worship being aired on News channels is a bit much.

 

[boomerang]

LOL! Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it.

That's almost as many times as Hillary said "I don't remember" when testifying before Congress over Whitewater.

I can fully understand why the left would be so totally and utterly enamored of a criminal like Hillary. What does it say about our nation that she's the best the left has to offer? Certainly nothing the left has a problem with.

 

[BlueWolf47]

That's almost as many times as Hillary said "I don't remember" when testifying before Congress over Whitewater.

I can fully understand why the left would be so totally and utterly enamored of a criminal like Hillary. What does it say about our nation that she's the best the left has to offer? Certainly nothing the left has a problem with.

Remind me what shes guilty of again?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You shouldn't worry about the questions being asked. It's the answers from the GOP canidates that provide us with so much entertainment.

Actually, one of the theories behind this rather transparently childish complaint is that the GOP is looking for a reason to get the GOP debates off the air as much as possible, believing that they hurt their chances of winning last time around. The debates put out in the open the current civil war between the tea party reactionaries and the somewhat moderate conventional Republicans that still remain in the party, and that's something RNC PR BS would like to keep under wraps as much as possible.

They're just taking their cue from Sarah Palin, whose likely only lasting legacy will be evidence that you can go through an entire election cycle never seriously answering a question and get away with it -- all you have to do is complain about media bias and then hide on FNC where they will only throw you softballs.

 

[PokerGuy]

As for NBC, its entertainment division is making a mini-series. This has zero to do with their news division. They are run by completely different leadership.

They are part of the same organization.

As to CNN, the case could be a better one, but then again no one has yet seen this documentary. The GOP here is trying to kill it before anyone sees it. Maybe they should take the stance that they'll pull the debates if they find the documentary to be too pro-Hilary biased rather than making a presumption about its content before it airs.

It's CNN, there is less doubt about the liberal pro hillary slant of this production than there is about the existence of gravity.

Clearly they are not approaching it this way because they think it will probably be biased in her favor, and they don't want anyone to ever see it. Which makes what they're doing particularly lame. Perhaps the public should be allowed to judge the documentary on its own.

That's not the point. The public can definitely watch whatever they want. What the gop is saying is that if you're going to pretend you're unbiased and neutral (which is laughable anyway, it's CNN and NBC), you can't at the same time be producing and airing a pro hillary lovefest. You can't have both, pick one.

 

[BlueWolf47]

That's not the point. The public can definitely watch whatever they want. What the gop is saying is that if you're going to pretend you're unbiased and neutral (which is laughable anyway, it's CNN and NBC), you can't at the same time be producing and airing a pro hillary lovefest. You can't have both, pick one.

Ya they should remove their slogan "fair and balanced". O wait, thats Fox News.

 

[Bowfinger]

Not a fan, though for what it's worth, Oreilly claims to be non-partisan.

That's worth exactly Jack and Squat. Non-partisan.

I've seen more people getting cut off on ABC and NBC by political talk show hosts than I have on Fox. I won't argue that the talk show hosts on Fox don't cut in when someone who is supposedly being interviewed goes into a rant and won't let the host get a word in edge wise, but that's their job. I'd expect the same treatment from the left and have seen it. People don't watch a political talk show to see a guest rant at the camera for thirty minutes straight. Not those on the right, nor those on the left.

Speaking of partisanship, yours is showing. When a MSM host interrupts one of your team, it's cutting them off. When a Fox host interrupts, it's cutting into a "rant". You're seeing what you want to see, based on whether you agree with the guest or not.

As for straw man arguments...This is what comes from not listening. The folks on the right don't see them as straw man arguments, they see them as legitimate concerns.

You clearly don't know what a straw man argument is, then. A straw man has nothing to do with presenting your own point of view. A straw man argument is misrepresenting your opponent's argument, either by fabricating something he didn't say or by pretending one piece of his argument is his complete argument. That could be because you weren't listening, or because you are willfully dishonest. For example:

Your opponent: "The sun doesn't rise in the west."
You: "You are wrong! Why do you think the sun rises in the north? Wow, you're dumb."
Your opponent: "Excuse me, I didn't say the sun rises in the north. That's a straw man."
You: "You're not listening to me. You say everyone who disagrees with you is stupid."

P&N is full of such dishonesty.

What the left refuses to acknowledge is that people have different viewpoints, and they are entitled to those viewpoints even if those viewpoints conflict with the ones the left champion.

OK, there's another good, real-life example of a straw man. "The left" doesn't refuse to acknowledge that at all. You are misrepresenting their position, either because you aren't listening to what they really say -- e.g., "you're welcome to you own viewpoints but not to your own facts" -- or because you are willfully dishonest about their position. Either way, me pointing out that your statement is a straw man doesn't mean I'm not listening. It means you're using a logical fallacy.

We may all be Americans, but we weren't all born in the same place with the same ethical and moral beliefs. Tolerance and diversity, I hear these words, but I don't see them practiced. Just because someone disagrees with someone else doesn't make them stupid or ignorant.

No kidding. But, believing things that are factually untrue is ignorance. Refusing to learn and accept what is factually true, even after it is given to you and documented with credible sources ... that is a good working definition of stupid. Once again, you'll find copious examples of both in P&N.

 

[PokerGuy]

Actually, one of the theories behind this rather transparently childish complaint is that the GOP is looking for a reason to get the GOP debates off the air as much as possible, believing that they hurt their chances of winning last time around.

You'd have to be very dumb to actually give any credence to that drivel. If anything is said that can be used as ammunition during those debates, I'm sure it will be picked up and aired as part of commercials or news everywhere anyway.

The idea that they want to keep the debates "under wraps" is just laughably stupid, something concocted by the kind of moron that writes for dailykos or huffpo.

all you have to do is complain about media bias

Looks to me like CNN and NBC are in the process of once again validating those complaints and proving the complainers right.

 

[nehalem256]

FOX should do a Rick Santorum documentary. They could call it "Butt Goo".

Ah yes. Same-sex marriage activists are so mature. And they have so many valid arguments they have to stoop to "your a giant poopy(santorum) head.

 

[PokerGuy]

Ya they should remove their slogan "fair and balanced". O wait, thats Fox News.

Not sure what fox news has to do with anything. How were they involved in this story again? Oh wait, they weren't.

Not that I think fox is in any way fair and balanced anyway, it's a load of garbage much like the other channels, just on the other side of the coin, but that's besides the point.

 

[justoh]

Who gives shit. If you really need a laugh that badly then watch it elsewhere. This must be about advertising, assuming they do that during the debates on tv. If not, then what's the problem?