Friday, March 09, 2007
|
|
Nevada Dems Wuss Out...
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
9:27 PM
|
|
...and the Spite Your Face Caucus is born.
The Nevada Democratic Party debate will no longer be sponsored by Fox News, after nutroots pressure culminated in John Edwards and then Bill Richardson pulling out of the debate. I know I'm not supposed to admit this, but "fair and balanced" aside I do think Fox News leans right, as CNN leans left. Let's just be honest about it and adopt the brutally honest British model of press partisanship.
My next point to the Dems is this: So what? The New Hampshire Republican Party accepted CNN as the co-sponsor of their April debate -- despite the network's controversial airing of terrorist propaganda videos. As far as I know, no conservative has demanded Republican candidates withdraw from the CNN debate. If conservatives don't mind a largely liberal viewership for their debate, why should the opposite be true? Who knows, we might actually convert some of them. Liberals apparently have no similar interest in even talking to conservative red state voters. (And a larger group of them to boot, thanks to Fox News' dominance in the ratings.) Will that be their downfall in 2008?
|
|
Liberal Patriot,
Pardon me for asking, but what on earth is "consumerism" ?
And please inform me how exactly it leads to "immorality."
I'm looking forward to hearing your interesting reply.
Thank You. |
|
I'll grant you that it might be a platitude--though not necessarily, I can't think of any instances where it hasn't worked out that way, but then that might be a condition of the lives of nation states, or cultures, or what have you.
The state, as we call it, has a habitual desire to secure, monopolize, scare resources and where it can do so a culture, depending upon the economic structure, becomes centralized--whether Big Man, Chieftain, or what have you. Control the resources, control the society, state, etc.
Anyway, I don't think that you can get to a non-materialistic zeitgeist by extolling a materialistic zeitgeist.
In other words, if the formal concept of our condition is materialistic then the greater number of our society has a materialistic worldview. And, one thing we cannot do is control how individuals interpret and express the governing ideas that they have adopted.
You, me, and others can throw an idea out there, but we have no control as to how someone will or won't incorporate it into his or her life.
So the sandal wearing, deadhead, driving a 69 bug who identifies himself as such is no different in this regard to the BMW, loafer wearing, philharmonic, box seat goer.
The state is incapable of insuring or destroying morality, but what it can do is envy the self making and modeling impulses of society and culture and seek to weaken and undermine these facets of a people. The reason being simple--a weak culture and society must rely on the state for its impulse to act and to be.
The problem is that the state is inherently limited, if not dumb, because it never has the information, let alone initiative, to direct its people to greatness, let alone, decency. The Gov. is hamstrung by the least common denominator and has no use for innovation. This is true of a democracy or dictatorship for very different reasons. Thus checks and balances to keep a democratic Gov. from approaching the effect and status of a dictatorship. |
|
That's a nice platitude, but who is advocating a state-managed economy? We are all democrats. We are all capitalists. The problem is achieving the right balance--in fact, that is where the two party system arises.
The problem is that unfettered capitalism leads to consumerism, and consumerism leads to immorality. That's how I see it, anyway. Consumerism--which does produce the highest standard of living--needs to be checked by aggressively asserted community standards. And, in a matter of speaking, that is state-managed. |
|
|
Morality does not attach itself to a state managed economy, but tyranny does. |
|
SP: Believe me, the impoverished American underclass has been here for a lot longer than four generations. At a minimum, it extends back to the great industrialization in the aftermath of the civil war.
Also, I think of scolds as being more feminine than masculine. And in any case, hypocrisy is distasteful in whatever gender.
Ponce DeLeon: Obama is quite clear, for instance, that fathers should stick around and help raise their kids, and that education will not work, no matter how much money is thrown at it, if families do not learn to impart it as a value. Some of his most contemptuous words are reserved for those who think of education as "white." |
|
"Hey, I didn't leave the Republicans--they left me...those of us who are fiscally liberal but culturally conservative."
When was the Republican Party fiscally liberal? Fiscally liberal and culturally conservative sounds like the Democrats, up until the 70's sometime.
"We have been iced out, even though we are a plurality. I think Obama will help change that."
You think Obama's culturally conservative? Could you give some examples of issues on which Obama would be shown to be culturally conservative? |
|
you keep insinuating that conservatives and/or Christians do not care about helping others. This is not true as you would know if you went to Church or read books and reports about who donates the most of their time and money. As Christians we are charged with being our brother's keeper. This does not mean giving our money to Caesar and letting him do it for us. Once again, we seem to agree on what needs to be done but NOT on how to go about it.
good men of faith would not rip off their fellow citizens. So, I agree with you that we should encourage everyone to find and keep faith. Great idea. |
|
but you have 4 generations and counting of an underclass trapped in poverty. tell them all you want about how America owes them and they are not responsible for their own actions and see how much that helps. 7 trillion dollars and counting.
you have proved my point. we are "hypocritical scolds". someone has to be the dad. |
|
I think one difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals want to control the economy and conservatives want to control your souls. Speaking as one who is liberal fiscally and conservative socially, it goes without saying that society has the right to vigorously enforce its moral standards. To me, that goes without saying. And I dislike liberals who act as though morality has no place in politics.
But you cannot turn our country over to the capitalist marketplace and expect morality to follow. A libertarian market economy will produce moral degeneration. That is the disconnect with the morality of today's conservatives. Capitalism has to be tempered with democracy. People need buy in and a stake. Then and only then will the morality stick. Until then, you conservatives come off as a bunch of hypocritical scolds. |
|
|
Call me an elitist--I know that half our country has third world type skills. But I also bound to them. We share a common heritage and a common culture. So you can act as though you are just common folk and I am some big bad elitist, but the reality is, Americans should look after their brother Americans. |
|
that mean ol' conservative Christians give way more than open-minded compassionate libs:)
We do care about people but the difference is we don't condone or encourage the actions of those who become victims of their own weaknesses. Ergo we become the heavies in the situation. that's why it is easier to be a lib. |
|
search your own response to me for the answers:)
Ok I'll help you out. Someone on here said they don't know any conservatives who contribute to society blah blah blah. I was answering them.
A. your notion that half the nation is dumb is actually one of our problems with Liberals, even nice ones like you. I'm glad that at least you admit it - you think many people, not you, are non-functional and therefore you feel sorry for them. We feel most people are smart enough to know better but choose otherwise. which leads to:
b. not having money does not make one uncivilized. Therefore taxes don't equal civilization. if everyone behaved properly they wouldn't need government assistance. We think the govt has replaced the human touch (even if said touch is stern). the moral shortcomings and bad decision-making, along with low frustration level leaves many in trouble. the left thinks the govt (=money) will solve the problem. I wish the Left would spend as much time on encouraging people to do right as they do on enabling poor souls' weaknesses.
see? we both want the same thing but we differ on how to achieve it. |
|
Hey, I didn't leave the Republicans--they left me. There were adults in that party at one time. Post-Reagan, they were replaced by noisy children. In fact, they are effectively the Dixiecrat party--while the Democrats are effectively the Lincoln states.
Since you've been doing this a long time, you'll remember the 1948 election. Michael Lind pointed out that the four main candidates each represented a constituency that continues to exist. Wallace represented the multi-cultural left. Thurmond represented what has become the Republican party. Dewey represented moderates and other market conservatives. The only group that does not get representation is the constituency represented by Truman--those of us who are fiscally liberal but culturally conservative. We have been iced out, even though we are a plurality. I think Obama will help change that. |
|
|
I've been following Am. civic life since the 1940's and was until the 1980's a registered Dem. with generally "liberal" tendencies. But when in 1984, the Dems. were claiming women all voted Dem., only Dems. cared about children, Reagan was a barely awake jerk (Dems. have taken up the mantra of "dumb" for their opponents and the tactic is dumb), the economy was in the pits-- only creating entry-level, min.-wage jobs, and only libs. believed in racial jusice, I switched party registration and philosophies. The ads were simply not true either socially or politically, and I think the lib. viewpoint is now even more skewed: now demanding the legal proscription of words (Newspeak if there ever was one), labeling "stupid" and "dumb" any people disagreed with whatever they propose (that's a really senseless argument), and trying to ban or exile opposite pts. of view like Fox News' commentary. The left thinks it can eliminate people's disagreement with it by ostracizing anyone who doesn't toe the party line. The mod. lib. of the 21st C. seems to think he/she can control all thought and idea by only allowing only his/her thoughts and ideas in the public market place. Others can be shouted down, ignored, belittled, and/or prohibited. I'm not surprised Dems. are afraid of Fox News. They are afraid the ideas they offer are easily exposed and opposed. So, they are running away and only allowing themselves to be broadcast or heard by people that already agree with them and meet their arrogant assumptions. |
|
Two widely separated communities each heard of the 'fastest horse' in the 'other' community. They decided to arrange a race, but due to 'fervent' support in eacu community for 'their horse', it was decided that for safety, the race would held at a track that was equally distant from each community.
When the two-horse race was over, horse 'A' won by a nose.
The media for community 'A' reported, "In a recent sporting event, OUR horse won and 'their' horse came in dead last".
The media for community 'B' reported "In a recent sporting event, OUR horse came in SECOND and 'their' horse came in next to last.
A 'fair and balanced' report would identify that there were only two horses in the race and on the day of the race, horse 'A' barely edged out horse 'B'.
And that is the way of so many things 'political'. There are those who want all the facts and there are those who want to 'feel good' about themselves and their champions and there are those who either 'report' or 'cater' (also called 'spin').
If either community 'A' or 'B' excludes reportage they don't want to hear, then neither community is truly interested in 'free speech' because differing views may make them look stupid, greedy, mendacious, deceptive or several other unflattering terms. Such people want lemming-like followers -- NOT people who believe they should be fully informed with ALL the pertinent facts, AND even differing opinions on what those 'facts' may mean.
Take for instance, those who are in this country illegally. Certainly they are human beings and by and large they are not 'bad' people, but they are ALL law-breakers, and under 'the law' and in the name of Justice UNDER THE LAW, they should be punished for BREAKING the law.
After all, SOME illegal alien lawbreakers make positive contributions to the community but some place heavy loads and drain on the community and even engage in criminal activities beyond the intitial law-breaking (illegal) entry.
People can cherry-pick what facts they want 'others' to hear but unless the total cost of the 'illegal alien law-breaking population' (all the facts) get revealed, all we get will be what the leaders of Community 'A' and Community 'B' want us to know or think.
I just want the facts, all of them. Censorship of pertinent facts (and opinions) is fundamentally a LIE. |
|
Back around the time your Big Red Machine was in full throttle, my uncle told me that in a civilized society, the smart half has to look after the not-so-smart half. And before that, my grandpa taught me that taxes are the price we pay for civilization.
As you know, I am fiscally liberal and culturally conservative. It seems to me that right-wing families don't need any help, until they do. Why is it that conservatives only seem to be concerned about AIDS, for instance, when it hits their nephew? Then and only then do they see the light. It is a kind of moral shortcoming to be unable to empathize with someone's predicament unless it happens to you personally.
|
|
|
Btw, Inkling Revival, Juan Williams is not the test. I think I remember an exchange with Bill Clinton and, as I recall, Hume was left sputtering like a deflating gasbag. I imagine that if Hume ventures against a savvy Democratic candidate, like Obama or Edwards or Richardson, his little platitudes--oohed and aahed over by his minions at Fox--would be punctured like the ill-conceived and under-tested thought balloons they are. |
|
I've been following our country's civic life for 40+ years, and while I like most conservatives personally, it is the right side of the aisle that has poisoned the American body politic over the past couple decades. I think it is because the American right-wing has an unmerited sense of entitlement, a bossy streak that is rooted in a type of bold and haughty ignorance.
I'll grant that you can find examples of bad behavior across the political spectrum, but today's conservatives act as though they are in possession of ultimate truth. That sort of moral arrogance is fatal to a democracy, because it turns politics into a process of "education" (i.e. indoctrination and propaganda, like Fox and talk radio). Whether invoking Jesus, or the sovereign market, or a triumphal America, conservatives today lack the intellectual humility required for democracy. They are too authoritarian, too cocky in their "knowledge."
The real consequences of conservative ideas--an eroding middle class, environmental brinkmanship, and most recently, military catastrophe--are filtering to the surface, too obvious to ignore. The conservative moment has passed. It was here for a few decades and now its over. Democracy is rebounding, and that slice of the American electorate that will remain authoritarian, er, Republican, is just going to seem blustery and pathetic--kind of like Fox "News." |
|
Here is an example of how the MSM remains fair and balanced even though 95% are flaming liberals. Take Kate Couric please. Kate’s Notebook reported the KKK is back. About 5,000 of them. That is about 0.00166667% of the nation. Afraid? Be very afraid because they are “fighting new issues like gay marriage and immigration” Their meetings are as big as 20 people right now …”but,” fair and balanced Katie says breathlessly, “history teaches us those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it…” Get it? All those who oppose gay marriage and unrestrained immigration are fellow travelers with the KKK. Pretty easy for any news anchor to slip in a little calumny.
See for your self how balanced the MSM can be:
http://www.flixya.com/katie-courics-notebook-is-the-kkk-back
|
|
|
Moveon.org does own the democrat part.Move on said so and now they have proved it. |
|
It doesn't bother me that I won't seen the Dem debate. I would rather not listen to their self-serving rants anyway.
I think Fox has been fresh air to the political climate. While, at times, it may lean a little to the right, it can still infuriate me with leftist guests and occasional liberal commentary.
The Fox opinion shows lean right, and rightly so. After all, the other news outlets consistently lean left. If nothing else, that makes a balance to some degree.
So no one should be surprised at the Democrat stance. It has never been open to anyone or anything that doesn't toe it's professed line.
|
|
This quiz can be answered by reading left leaning AP about the international conference in Baghdad this week regarding stabilizing Iraq some one said this:
___(Choice one)_________restated “demands for a clear timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces, which he insisted have made Iraq a magnet for extremists from across the Muslim world.”
Was it:
A. Rep. John Murtha (Dem – Pennsylvania)
B. Iranian envoy, Abbas Araghchi
C. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Dem- San Francisco)
D. All the above.
Read what AP said:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070310/D8NPI88O1.html
New like this are spun in just this fashion by both left and right. Fox just balances the MSM's already outrageous imbalance. Hugh's listeners again (reruns while he getting ready for the "Mormon in the White House book tour) heard ABC and Washington Post editors frankly admit the imbalance in their respective news rooms. Their transparency was refreshing! even if it had to be extracted over Hugh's two hour grilling.
|
|
You wrote:
"If conservatives don't mind a largely liberal viewership for their debate, why should the opposite be true?"
Because they have a lot more alternatives, and right now discrediting Fox as a source of information ranks much higher on their agenda than reaching new audiences.
For all the "demise of the MSM" triumphalism we voice, they still have a lot of power, and right now there is a not-so-subtle "war" between them and outlets like Fox News - a war to which, at the moment, they still bring tremendously greater firepower.
The effort's been gathering momentum for a while now, that effort being to give the vast majority of Americans who haven't watched Fox or paid great attention to the "new media" the impression that there is something unsavory and unacceptable about it.
It's not a "liberal conspiracy" - it's a matter of market positioning in a (rearguard?) action to deligitimize competing "brands" in the eyes of the audience pool. The Democrats join in that effort because they get much more value out of the MSN than they do from the more ideologically diverse new media, however beneficial aspects of that new media (from Comedy Central to the so-called "Netroots") are for them...and they can still use the parts that are favorable to them while helping discredit "brands" like Fox and blogs that threaten the ability of the MSM to shape the terms of the debate.
The last word in the above paragraph not unintentionally mirroring what happened here: pulling the rugs out from under a "Fox debate" by broadcasting that "Fox isn't Fair" (as if CNN is, but objective reality is not a value the "reality-based community" has much connection to).
|
|
|
the Dem's constituency is so uneducated and lazy that they are prey for the Dem members in Congress. That's part one. The second problem in this vicious cycle is that the Dems can lie repeatedly, doggedly for a looooonnngggg time. Look at what they did from Nov '04 thru Nov '06. They had no platform, aped the GOP's ideas, and dodged the real issues for 2 years. They ran GOP-lite candidates to win some states, fooling their hate-blinded moveon.orgers. And the press aided and abetted them. i think it is still going to be a long time before we rid the land of libs in power. |
|
|
To me the Dems are showing their "my way or the highway attitude." I have several liberal friends and they are so filled with hatred, will not discuss or tolerate anything the right has to say. They are single minded and are making a mockery of free speech. It is almost laughable but scary. The Dems will implode, it is just a matter of time. |
|
Brit Hume how in the world are they going to be able to stand up to al Qaeda, Iran, and North Korea?
Speaking of left wing bias, remember the first debate between Kerry and Bush? Left wing "journalist" Bob Schieffer didn't find Kerrys 20 years in the senate relevant. It's unbelievable he never asked one question to either candidate about his 2 decades in the senate. |
|
"Conservatives talk a big game when it comes to morality, but there is no evidence that they do a better job living virtuously, or raising their kids well, or contributing to the broader good."
Hahahahahahaha. Guess it's conservative families who need the government's help all the time rearing their kids AND paying for them. I guess going to work and paying for freeloaders doesn't count to the general good?
Watch Neil Cavuto chew up and spit out the liar that is Paul Krugman, economist to Lenin.
Stick to bumper sticker slogans, you know you're short-term thinkers. |
|
|
Actually I don't care if the Dems debate on Fox or not, but ginned up outrage characterizes them as caricatures: Thus the kind term faux outrage. |
|
"It seems to be a reflex now to turn any failure to cooperate with the Right into a character flaw."
When a leftist abuses a statistic, produces a forged document, hurls a gratuitous insult, engages in clear hypocricy, we simply point it out, usually without whistling, stamping, shouting, egg-throwing, or any of the other hystrionics leftists routinely employ. The liberal, thus caught behaving in a hyena-like fashion, will never admit error, but invariably responds with "You're just saying that because we've exposed your hypocricy" or some similar vapidity.
In one instance, we actually caught some lefty bloggers photoshopping Michelle Malkin's face onto the bodies of Girls Gone Wild, and the left's response to it was to BLAME MALKIN, vis: "If she weren't such a vituperative b****, we wouldn't be going after her like this."
We've seen this hundreds of times in the past years. Is this what you're talking about? |
|
"What Lilly says is true. There is too much of a tendency among right-wingers these days to challenge the character of those who have the temerity to have different outlook."
Wow, what a nice, pat, self-serving conclusion.
I've never challenged the character of those who disagree with me; I challenge the character of those who demonstrate deficient character. Disagreement is not one of my criteria.
LP, I'll actually take a hard look at whether the Left is more virtuous than the Right when I can actively engage in a conversation with a liberal who doesn't resort to sneering ad hominems within the first minute of the beginning of the conversation. I've been conservative for 25 years+, and it's my consistent testimony that liberals (with only a handful exceptions in 25 years) simply can't engage in intellectual conversations with those who seriously disagree with them without resorting to sneering and slander as a FIRST resort. |
|
"I think my Democrats should have held the debate on Fox and used the opportunity to put pretentious bores like Brit Hume or smarmy weasels like Chris Wallace in their place."
I haven't seen a member of the Democrat party in my entire lifetime who could put Brit Hume in any place at all. He regularly makes Juan Williams look like the lying, unintelligent weasel that he is, and does it without ever being anything other than polite. |
|
Don't understand this - if Dems are all loser liberals and dont have much of anything intelligent to say, then why are conservatives fussing and making a deal of this pull out from Fox News? Especially in light of commanding ratings of FN?
Wonder if the brass at Fox noticed some of the recent trends in viewer ratings and are desparate to get some new viewership..Na.. |
|
What Lilly says is true. There is too much of a tendency among right-wingers these days to challenge the character of those who have the temerity to have different outlook. Conservatives talk a big game when it comes to morality, but there is no evidence that they do a better job living virtuously, or raising their kids well, or contributing to the broader good. Rather, one suspects they bluster on and on about the Dems supposed lack of character because their own hold on morality is so tenuous and flimsy. And as Dogjudge noted, when has Cheney gone on Air America?
I personally think the Dems should pretend like Fox is a news organization. Democracy is more powerful than propaganda. Besides, no one takes Fox seriously anymore. It's a tabloid, for crying out loud. It's a joke. |
|
|
Don't know whether you saw this cartoon a week or so ago: John Gibson is saying "Al Gore has been seen in the company of a short nude man"---Al Gore is standing there holding his Oscar statuette---and off to one side, two viewers in front of their TV are recognizing "FOX". |
|
You sound like Bill O'Reilly who, when anyone shows to good judgment to refuse to go on his show and get shouted down and told to shut up, says they are "afraid". Did Democrats "wuss out" as you say in your title? My morning paper says they withdrew because FOX news was right-biased and they knew they wouldn't get fair coverage. As they didn't in your title. Several examples of FOX's bias were cited.
It seems to be a reflex now to turn any failure to cooperate with the Right into a character flaw. |
|
|
a panel of 5 liberals with a mix of actors, comedians, and Dem ops v. 1 conservative. The host is "neutral" like the refs in "Longest Yard". The conservative usually has class so will not exchange derisive know-nothing shouts with the other "tolerant" panelists. the audience is liberal as well which means they are probably not totally sober from the day before and pour catcalls down on the stage. This is fair to libs. What babies they are when they don't get their way. "I'm taking my ball and going home!" "Mommmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!" |
|
Not "I would complain"
That should have been "I wouldn't complain . . ." |
|
This administration, more than any other administrations, has been adept (or guilty depending on your view) at controlling their message and controlling the press. If you don't report it the way that they like you get relegated to the back of the bus.
As was pointed out in the Libby/Plame affair, they used various "reporters" to get their message out to their benefit.
Simple question.
This is all about hardball politics. Why would anyone with a particular message want to go through one of your staunchest enemies to deliver that message?
I would complain about Vice-President Cheney refusing to go on Air America, or Bill Maher. |
|
|
Must. Stay. Inside. Echochamber. |
|
Conservatives, in their political narcissism, confuse 'non-conservative' with 'anti-conservative,' or 'liberal. So when an outfit like CNN or NBC present non-conservative stories, they are deemed "anti-conservative."
Fox News presents some interesting issues, because unlike the other news outfits, it is the moral equivalent of Tass or some other state-sanctioned media. While it may grab a plurality of news watchers, people whose ideological alliances trump their fidelity to truth, it is not a legitimate news organization. For Democrats, it becomes a difficult question: does one treat the propagandistic arm of the Republican party with the contempt it deserves? or does one pretend it is legitimate media, in the interests of democracy, free press, and the marketplace of ideas?
I lean towards the latter. As one who is fiscally liberal and culturally conservative, there is paltry representation in the MSM for my views. At the same time, the more voices, the better. Almost all American conservatives, and many liberals as well, act as though there are two sides, and only two sides, to every issue. Everyone knows what the story is with Fox. They are a tabloid rag that pretends to take itself seriously.
Personally, I think my Democrats should have held the debate on Fox and used the opportunity to put pretentious bores like Brit Hume or smarmy weasels like Chris Wallace in their place. But as for a "downfall in 2008"--keep dreaming. In 2008, you're going to carry the south and a few states on the old Lewis and Clark trail, and that's all! As for Fox News, the cat is out of the bag--they are as credible as the Weekly World. Everyone knows it. No one respects their credibility. Their audience is true believers, not rational citizens. |
|
|
Why are the democrats wussing out? Republicans have been going on CBS, ABC, NBC and TNN for years knowing they are going to be blindsided by this conglomeration of liberals. Democrats are fearful they will, AT LAST, be asked pertinent, prying questions instead of being lobbed soft balls by the MSM. Just goes to show you, democrats hide behind the media, their compatriots in crime. |
|
|
The whole purpose of Fox News is simply 24/7 Democratic party bashing so why is anyone suprised that the Democrats finally told Fox to shove it already! I'm no fan of Barack Obama--he's only been in the Senate about 20 minutes and looks at the White House as if it's a done deal for him--but this Obama/Osama nonsense is overdone as well as over the top. Enough already. |
|
That should be--Fox is more right than CNN is left. |
|
So are the rest of the dems that pull out of a debate. If they think it is sponsered by a bias network,then win the debate and discredit anything they think is a lie.
If they are not willing to deal with apress they feel is bias, they are NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT. The world is full of forein leaders who will be bias and lie for their own best interest.
Maybe if Edwards were allowed to bring his mother so if things get to rough,she could step in and protect "wittle johnny." That way if he gets hungry she could expose a nipple and give him a feeding.
Whats that rolling around on the ground? Oh, it's John-John's testicles. Pick them up and give them to Edwards, He's going to need some to match up to Hillary's. |
|
Fox News tilts right in the news--and tilts way right on commentary.
Take for example, the leaked memos instructing News folks on how to "handle" different stories, especially those related to Kerry.
The selection of stories is also skewed and sometimes the presentation--look at the Terry Schiavo case. Those who wanted to prolong her vegetative state were always "Terri's advocate" or "Terri's supporters." These were hard news reports. (CNN also made this same mistake, though not as consistently.)
The panels skew right (when Milt Kondracke is pitted against Brit Hume, Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer, that is not balance).
Then there are the commentators. Gibson, Cavuto, O'Reilly, Hume, Hannity and the Fox and Friends are all right wing. Alan Colmes is a liberal.
Fox is far more right than CNN. Facts is facts.
|
|
|
That would be CNN and yet the Republicans do not run from it. I don't think Fox is all that conservative, they just seem so in comparison with the obvious liberal bias of the media in general..My problem with all cable news is the preoccupation with Anna Nicole, Michael Jackson and the talking heads that just yak yak yak all the time. Never stops. I don't watch much TV news anymore because of that. |
|
|
Yes! If presenting both sides as opposed to only the Left's propaganda makes them right wing then so be it. FOXNews plays it down the middle, which makes it seem to the right because everything else is so far left. |
|
|
|
|
More faux outrage: the dim parameter ranges from outrageous to tedious. |
|
yeah, FOX isn't conservative. they're balanced by sean hannity bill o'reilly brit hume michelle malkin rush limbaugh ann coulter...and that laugh track show with comedians limbaugh and coulter...and the terrorist torture show...and CNN pimped bush's bs war as hard as FOX.
and FOX's headline for the libby verdict?
"LIBBY FOUND NOT GUILTY OF LYING TO FBI INVESTIGATORS"
uh, yeah.
objective as roger ailes bringing rush to national syndication.
|
|
Patrick,
When you state you believe that Fox News leans right, are you talking about their commentary, or are you talking about their hard news reporting ?
Obviously, the two ought not be conflated.
For example, while the Wall Street Journal's opinion page tilts conservative, the WSJ's news coverage actually tilts to the left.
Patrick, perhaps you could point out specific examples of where Fox News' news coverage has tilted to the right.
Again, just to be clear, I'm making a distinction between commentary by commentators, vs. hard news.
|
|
My problem with Fox News transcends the gloss, transcends Ruffini's erroneous comment about the tenor of their news coverage, {typical of Ruffini to get it wrong..., he's getting up there with Dean and his Romney fixation}.
No. None of that.
My problem with Fox News is far more momentous than any of that.
My problem with Fox News is that they allowed the ravishing Heather Nauert to move on to ABC.
THAT'S my beef. |
|
That's not my issue with it. My problem with Fox is with the graphic-heavy style, its tabloid look, and that overblown red/white/blue color scheme that screams, almost out of obsessive insecurity, that THIS IS AMERUCA. And those electric guitar riffs. Is this the news or an NFL game?
But the Nevada Democrats just set up a stupid precedent. Fox News is the New York Post of broadcasting, sure, but that doesn't mean its not legitimate, and stomping your feet that its not further poisons the political conversation.
This ups the rhetorical arms race. Will the GOP candidates boycott MSNBC? Refuse to do talk shows? Only talk to interviewers they deem fair (i.e. on their side?)
It's cowardly just to listen to the 100 percenters on your side. The Nevada Dems just crumpled up to the crazies.
DU |
|
Most people would like to be able to be Liberal. It would be nice to live in a world where there were no threats worse than self inflicted woes, accidents, garden variety criminality and random acts by individual psychopaths. Where our ethnicity being challenged was a most egregious slight. But the real world is not so simple, sticks and stones do break our bones.
I am still waiting for a Liberal apologist to ennunciate why liberalism is a viable solution to the problems reality imposes. I would love to hear one idea. I am not going to hold my breath though, because the solutions they put forth do not hold water. They are debating each other and whoever produces the debacle will not be able to influence the tenor, or are they projecting how they know the 'left leaning' referee will paint the G.O.P. debates?
The Perfect World scenario that gives Liberalism a snowballs chance in Hades of working is virtually unattainable in modern times with fallible Human Beings as the linch-pins to its success. Convince me, Democrats, that your solutions will bring peace,prosperity, equality, and a victory over our enemies. If you cannot debate among those with similar viewpoints to your own, how can you convince those who disagree?
As a cable news viewer where Fox was the only network that even attempted (rather pathetically) to be unbiased toward the conservative viewpoint, I have turned them ALL off. Leave the tabloids in the supermarket line. I guess Edwards and Richardson and the rest would like PBS tossing them their BP softballs. Until the Left tries earnestly to convince the right with ideas and solutions, our country will have to remain divided. |
|
Just watch Fox News begin to tilt Left, in search of "strange new respect."
Criticism works, hypercriticism has worked for the left.
And it very well might work here.
Look how FOX News ran with that global warming special a little while ago, all because of the urgings of a Kennedy.
They're not impervious to criticism. They're in the news business, and rest assured, they crave the respect of their peers.
Just watch. |
|
|
Roger Ailes quoting Ted Kennedy about Sen. Obama doesn't seem like enough of an excuse for Dems to back out, but any port in a storm I guess. |
|
I don't think FOX is particularly conservative, in fact I find them pretty irritating at times because I wish they were more so.
That said, the Nevada Democrats are PARTICULARLY a bunch of wusses on this. If they can't stand up to Alan, Greta and Geraldo then they have big problems.
|
|
your comments cogent...simple...yet lepricanious dweebs rule our MSM.same for the heehaa Party.
the serf |
|
|
The Democrats have every other network in their pocket, with help from the entertainment programming, too. They will be fine. |
|
Great Headline.
The Dems really are not thinking this through. |
|
|
|