Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Is it not the story of the three little pigs and the big bad wolf (Fox)? Edwards fears Fox because they hufffed and puffed. Then Obama fears Fox when he huffed and puffed. Hillary fears Fox so she ran with the other pigs. America faces serious challenges in the future. Can we afford leaders that are afraid to confront issues? What about confronting our enemies?

To me, it is a hell of a clue on how they would lead, lead America to disaster. Remember General Pace calling homosexuality immorral? I know for sure Hillary and Barack were like deer in headlights, afraid, very afraid to answer. Why trust Americas leadership to people that only want to tow the line for liberals only, not the rest of America?--jp 08:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

It's not solely a Democratic problem. McCain refused to attend CPAC. About the only time we hear from Cheney is on El Rushbo. One might even call running from Fox the television equivelent of protecting an article to preserve one's edits, which often happens on a certain conservative wiki that I know. Teresita 09:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


I've read your response over and over, sorry it doesn't make sense. McCain refused to attend CPAC because? The only problem, which you call solely not a Democrat problem, is that candidates of the left have refused attendence purely on childish reasons and the influence of MoveOn that says Don't! Those childish reasons are what make it so pathetic. What they are saying to America is we don't trust America to know our real views, lets keep it hush hush until the elections over. So in order to appear like they made a legitamite desicion, they call Fox nammes and try to marginalize their reputation. Edwards says he prefers a debate hosted by CNN. Wonder why? Maybe because it was established by a far leftwing supporter? Maybe because not only do they tilt more than left, their partisanship is overwhelming for the leftwing bias. Is it fair for America to not know the truth? All these candidates want is softball questions that don't put them in a position to alienate voters. That perfect example being General Pace's comments. Cho Cho, the train bears down as a response is requested of our fearless Democrats. Only days later do they clarify their unwavering support for gays, not immoral, huh?--jp 22:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Part of being President is being a military leader. And part of being a military leader is knowing how to choose terrain that's favorable to you, and bad for your opponents. And with Fox's fairly consistent anti-Liberal bias, I can't blame them for wanting to appear somewhere else. --BobD 05:42, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

BobD, what's the D for Democrats? You can't blame them? hmmm. Maybe all Republicans should boycott anything having to do with NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, etc. Just admitt you hate Fox because they tilt to the right. Bias is what the leftwing media offers. That is not tilting left, that is one viewpoint only- leftwing bias. When you claim Fox bias, your assertions are foolish because they offer a liberal perspective (which I hate), unlike the left media companies that offer no rightwing perspective. The left of America is so much wanting a communist system whereby one party rules unchallenged. Keep dreaming, your democrat leaders are a sorry bunch. Your democrat leaders can't keep offering America no views on the issues and keep winning elections.--jp 23:44, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry Jpatt, you seem to be forgetting that the reason the debate was cancelled is because Roger Ailes, the CEO of FOX, said:
"It's true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true President Bush called [Pakistan President Pervez] Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?"
So apparently, comparing a highly educated, well respected presidential candidate with a terrorist leader is acceptable in the eyes of Mr. Ailes. This is called racism, and racism is bad. --Hojimachongtalk 23:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
To be fair, that joke made me laugh. And if you don't think we'll be hearing a LOT of "Obama Bin Laden" comments, both joking and not, between now and November of 2008, you are far more optimistic than I am. --BobD 23:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm sure we will be hearing them. Is it funny the first time? Yes. Is it at all appropriate to do? No. It's racist, bigoted, and generally an indicator of the speaker's tact. --Hojimachongtalk 23:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Look on the bright side--it'll get all the bigots and idiots out in the bright light of day, where we can see them. --BobD 00:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Hojima, racist? liberals are so easily offended or should I say selectively offended. I didn't see the race involved in that cute remark. It was meerly a word play. And play is what our democrats are good at, such ego maniac multi,multi-millionaire actors. Go ahead, vote for your mamma Obama. How about that word play. RACIST. In fact, democrat leaders are soo much child like. Not your old democrat party thats for sure. --jp 19:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


For those individuals that suggest Democrats just trying to find a fair forum. I give you the fearless Republicans.

Lo and behold next week all the Republican candidates will be on MSNBC — the same channel that, as Mitt Romney pointed out, will include a moderator who used to work in the Carter administration and for Tip O'Neill. That could be unfriendly territory. These Republicans don't seem to care. As Romney pointed out, "We're happy to sit there and have him dish questions to us." Why? "Because we have courage," Romney said. "I have courage of my convictions."--jp 23:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Jp on April 15 you listed a slew of media outlets that you contend to be liberally bias; does it not seem odd to you that the majority of trusted news outlets these days would be liberally bias when America seems to be fairly evenly split between liberals and conservatives, or to suit the terms of this debate Republicans and Democrats. By contending that the vast majority of today’s political media is liberally bias you assert that the vast majority of America’s population is left wing, which as we can see in our judicial, legislative and executive branches of government is not the case.--HKK

HKK: that the majority of media outlets that you trust are liberally biased, need not seem so odd at all if the population is split evenly between liberals and conservatives--or even if conservatives are in the majority. The ranks of journalists are not drawn at random from the ranks of the general population. Nine out of every ten professional journalists today, donate regularly or have donated to liberal causes, and to the Democratic Party.[1] The trouble is twofold:
  1. Conservatives do not apply to go to journalism school as frequently as liberals do. The reason: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who don't even know enough to teach, scribble.
  2. Even when conservatives do apply to journalism schools, they either don't get in or get hounded out of school, not being able to handle the overwhelming and unremitting hostility of the "learning environment" directed toward conservatives generally.--TerryHTalk 15:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Terry your attempt at wit in relation to your assertion that liberals can do no more than ‘scribble’ has been dually noted, along with your utter failure at it as you managed to leave out half of the important information from your quoted source. It is true, well at least according to your article from MSNBC.com, (though I am surprised you found it to be a trusted source as it is a part of NBC, a news medium you appeared to believe to be liberally biased) that nine out of ten news professionals donating today do indeed donate to Democratic causes. It is not, however, true that all journalists donate to political causes; in fact, according to the article you cited these donors are a “tiny fraction of the roughly 100,000 staffers in newsrooms across the nation.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485). While it is true that there are more left wing journalism majors than there are right wing the difference is not as great as you would like people to believe; in fact as of 2002 48% of journalists categorized themselves as leaning to the left and 52% of journalists categorized themselves as leaning either to the right or sitting in the middle (http://www.journalism.org/node/2304). And if Jp’s contention were true then we could reasonably assume that at least the majority of the conservative population (Fox’s core demographic) tuned in to Fox, or at the very least prefers Fox over the media sources that the two of you believe to be liberally biased, however, this is not the case either. According to a study conducted by the ad agency Carat USA “37 percent of viewers calling themselves ‘very conservative’ watch CNN in the course of a week, while only 32 percent tune to Fox .” (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005). CNN’s cumulative ratings are also significantly higher than Fox’s, most notably during April 2003, “at the height of fighting in Iraq”. It was at this time that CNN ‘cumed’ 105 million viewers as opposed to Fox’s 86 million (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005). It does not make sense that Fox would suddenly become a more trusted resource for news during election time than they would be on any other given day. Perhaps you see Fox as the only trusted source out there, but the majority of America respectfully disagrees. --HKK
HKK, your argument assumes that one who does not donate is, by virtue of declining to donate, politically neutral. Or if such a person is not neutral, then you are assuming that the non-donating group splits its votes either down the middle, or in proportion to their readership.
I don't donate either--but I have already demonstrated how conservative I am. That I don't donate is because I can't afford to. And besides--people donate the most important thing that candidates really need when they vote for that candidate. Now are you prepared to assert that the journalists who do not donate, do not vote, either? Well, maybe not--but are you prepared to show that the journalists who do not donate, split their votes straight down the middle or even that they vote in proportion to the general population?--TerryHTalk 17:40, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

HKK, I'm not all that familiar with the American political scene, and I don't want to speculate too much on why the journalists might lean more one way than the other, but I think that it's fairly well established that they do. I recall hearing quite a few years ago of a survey that showed that 80% of the American population was opposed to abortion, but 80% of journalists were in favour of it.

Also, the survey that you quoted regarding what journalists believe of themselves (48% liberal/52% conservative or in the middle), I wouldn't give much weight to, as a lot of people consider themselves to be "just right" and everybody else with different views to be "biased". To put it another way, you are asking people to judge where they are in relation to a "centre" that is based on where everyone else is, and most would not be able to accurately make that judgement.

Philip J. Rayment 10:00, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Not at all, my point was noting your skewed fact and pointing out the irony of the fact that apparently you are not even capable of scribbling. I also do not appreciate your trying to justify your spin on news sources by contending that a vote is somehow a donation. Furthermore the fact that there are more conservative readers than there are conservative writers (http://www.journalism.org/node/2304) only serves to prove my point; if the number of conservatives in the population out weighs the number of liberals [which they did as of 2002 anyway, 41% to 17% (http://www.journalism.org/node/2304)] and Fox is still unable to maintain a higher cumulative rating than CNN then clearly CNN appeals to more than just the liberal set, (a fact which was stated in greater detail above), thus proving my point that CNN is a more trusted news source than Fox. In saying that America was not more right than left I was not contending that the journalists were evenly split, but rather that population was, (though admittedly after doing a bit more research on the topic I found that these numbers were even more extreme than I needed to prove my point). Why would so many conservatives tune into CNN if they found it to be liberally biased? And why would Democratic presidential candidates appear on a Fox when it clearly has fewer viewers than CNN, and the ones that it does have are resolutely against voting for Democrats anyway? --HKK
You couldn't have been noting my skewed facts—I hadn't written anything prior to your previous reply! I was just jumping in to make the point that regardless of "liberal" or "conservative" leanings of whoever, I understood that it was fairly well established that the leanings of journalists was not representative of the leanings of the population as a whole, whereas you seemed to be questioning that point in an earlier post. Philip J. Rayment 19:52, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

No, and I apologize for the mix up. I had written that on a word document in response to Terry H but I was unable to post it at the point that I finnished it so I put it up the next morning after you had replied. My apologies.--HKK

That's okay. Philip J. Rayment 01:58, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

What kind of media outlet will Fox make if it blatantly reports things wrong for political gain? To be fair here, I loathe TV news. All of it. Except maybe Colbert. Most of my news comes from Google News, a few blogs (Game politics, BoingBoing, TJIC, etc.), and NPR. But Fox is the one TV media outlet I hate the most. I turn it on and they have boldfaced lies sprinkled in with their blatant sensationalism. For an example of outright deception, Fox has a decently consistent track record of labeling disgraced representatives as Democrats (See: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/82/261100980_b1c9333fe0.jpg). For blatant sensationalism, I recommend you dig around for the clips about Mass Effect on Fox. Being a gamer, it makes me simultaneously giggle and feel sickened by the headline "SeXbox Expose," especially about a game with as tame a "sex" scene as Mass Effect. Oh, and their expert was hilarious too - a self-help author with no respectable research in any related field. Oh! And their panel sucked, too. Not a one of them had seen anything from the game but the 20-second clip aired on Fox. So yes, I happen to think that maybe, just maybe, keeping a couple inches away from Fox might be a good idea for any politician not already given the Fox seal of approval.--Reasonless 23:58, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

References

  1. Dedman, Bill. "Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)." MSNBC 5:07 p.m. ET June 25, 2007. Retrieved July 3, 2007. Take note also of this correction: Correction: One of the names was included in error in the list of newspeople who contributed to political campaigns ("The list: Journalists who wrote political checks") on June 21. Joe Cline, a graphic artist at The San Diego Union-Tribune, is in the advertising department, not in news. His name has been removed. Because Cline had given to Republicans, the adjusted tally is 143 journalists: 125 giving to Democrats and liberal causes, 16 to Republicans, and two to both parties.
Personal tools