home

Obama on Fox

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:15:30 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Fox News (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Some folks may get upset that some video of Barack Obama answering a question from a Fox News reporter was aired on Brit Hume's program. This is ridiculous. The context proves that Obama did absolutely nothing inconsistent or wrong:

The Obama interview occurred with a group of reporters asking questions, one of whom was from FNC.

Obama did not go on Fox, he held a press availability. Public figures and politicans can not exclude even fake news organizations like Fox from press availabilities.

Whatever the merits of the Fox Dem debate controversy, political candidates can not exclude news organizations from press conferences. That would be totally unacceptable imo. Obama, on this point, did absolutely nothing wrong.

< Imus: Crucified For One Remark? | The Politics of Contrast Is Working >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama on Fox | 64 comments (64 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Why would anyone boycott Fox? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:22:46 AM EST
    It's the #1 rated news channel.  Period.

    The boycott of a news orginization just becasue they are slanted or not slanted is silly partisanship out of control.

    Liberals need to get their heads on straight.  It's petty politics that will only hurt them.

    You can't change minds if you talk to yourself in an echo chamber.

    Republicans don't boycott CNN, MSNBC, PBS etc... which are all mediums that they find left leaning.  

    Never mind the facts which show that Fox has liberal commentators in addition to their conservative talking heads and let's debate subjects on almost every show repeatdly allowing liberal leaning comments on their airwaves.

    The truth is that Fox has carved out it's market share because they are not like the rest of the Main Stream Media and Dem's crying like little children will only work against them.

    This is so ridiculous on the part of liberals and democrats it boggles the mind.

    Depends (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:26:15 AM EST
    I am gray on this issue.

    If you go on Fox the right way, you can do good things.

    Unfortunately, Dem pols are pretty awful on Fox so I think, as a practical matter, they should not go on Fox, because they perform horribly there.

    Parent

    Dems can learn from Clark about going on Fox. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by cal11 voter on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:43:23 PM EST
    He's been doing it right for sometime now.  It think it is a mistake to abandon a network's viewership IMHO.  But Fox needs to change it's ways too, and I think they will if the Dems continue the pressure.  If only Bush were susceptible to pressure.  Or is he?

    Parent
    Answering a reporters question in a press (none / 0) (#28)
    by kindness on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:53:12 PM EST
    conference setting is completely OK, in fact it's expected.

    But going into a FOX studio or linking over to one of their programs via satellite?  You gotta be nuts to do that as a progressive.  I have yet to see them treat a progressive in their studio with respect or dignity.  What Chris Wallace did to President Clinton is the norm.  Knowing that, why hand them the sword just so they can stab you in the back with it?

    Parent

    What's your opinion as to how Clark has done... (none / 0) (#29)
    by cal11 voter on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:59:40 PM EST
    on Fox when he's appeared there?

    Parent
    I only gave my opinion. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kindness on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:50:25 PM EST
    I wouldn't do it.

    I wouldn't tell someone else they can't do it either.  Let's just say I don't trust Fox as a news organization.

    How's that for not answering your question?  I didn't because I haven't seen Clark's appearances.  If he wants to do it, more power to him.  Me, I wouldn't.

    Parent

    Fair enough. If interested, you can see Clark's.. (none / 0) (#42)
    by cal11 voter on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:56:28 PM EST
    past Fox appearances at SecuringAmerica.com.  I think most recent ones are there.

    Parent
    Uhhh (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by taylormattd on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:23:46 PM EST
    Republicans don't boycott CNN, MSNBC, PBS etc... which are all mediums that they find left leaning
    Who cares what they "find" to be left leaning? None of those networks are truly left leaning, and in fact, both CNN and MSNBC bend over backward on a regular basis to kiss conservative ass. More importantly, Fox News isn't just "right leaning." It is nothing less than a propaganda arm for the RNC.

    Parent
    you are wrong (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:23:47 PM EST
    It's the #1 rated news channel.  Period.
    it's the #1 CABLE news network, broadcast news dominates it.

    also, faux never has more viewership than the cnn & msnbc combined, so if dems would boycott faux (and they should since the interviews are always hostile and if a dem starts to make a pint they just shut his mic off) and only go on the other channels exclusively then faux would have less significant programming and ratings would fall.

    And frankly, who cares what the mouthbreather rethugs watch, there is no way they'd vote for a dem anyway.

    Parent

    Read (none / 0) (#62)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:36:48 PM EST
    Fox is the #1 rated news channel.

    Fox is the #1 channel dedicated to news.  

    Fox is the #1 rated cable news network.

    Please explain your post.

    The cable network channels drive the news today.  

    If being progressive means you're too scared to present your ideas to the American public then by all means only appear on networks that don't ask hard question.

    Parent

    And anoher thing... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:37:23 PM EST
    I voted for Bill twice.

    Parent
    Absolutely, BTD (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:32:16 PM EST
    Nothing wrong with Obama answering the question.  If however he winds up going on one of the network shows, or consenting to an "exclusive" interview with, say, Alan Colmes, then there at that precise moment will go my last shred of respect for the man.

    Lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas.  A good saying.

    Stay alert.

    What about "keep your friends close, but... (none / 0) (#38)
    by cal11 voter on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:47:13 PM EST
    keep your enemies closer"?  Godfather I, right?  I always liked that one.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:00:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Sun-tzu... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by desertswine on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:36:36 PM EST
    Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

    Sun-tzu

    Chinese general & military strategist (~400 BC)


    Parent

    Thanks for sourcing. n/t (none / 0) (#64)
    by cal11 voter on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:20:06 PM EST


    Parent
    The day it is wrong for a politician to answer... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by cal11 voter on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:50:41 PM EST
    a reporter's questions is the day our democracy begins to die.  The employer of the reporter is irrelevant.  It is the fact that a candidate is subjecting himself to questioning that matters.  Let's not lose sight of the ultimate purpose here.

    Big Tent Lies (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by HeadScratcher on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    You state that Fox is a "fake news organization". This is a blatant lie. You may not like their choice of stories, or the way they frame the issues, but the stories are not fake and neither are the reporters.

    Let's be honest: Progressives dislike Fox because they slant to the right. Conservatives dislike CNN because they slant to the left. MSNBC is definitely slanting to the left with Olbermann and Matthews against Scarbourough. Is MSNBC fake?

    Stop lying...

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:41:52 AM EST
    Too funny.

    Headscratcher lies! Heh.

    Parent

    Where (none / 0) (#6)
    by HeadScratcher on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:55:09 AM EST
    Where did I lie?

    You have now called me liar, back it up!

    My point in all of this is that we as a society gain nothing at all by doing this sort of thing to one another. You can have disagreements and debates, but to help create these types of divides adds nothing to the debate and can and often does create the opposite reaction.

    Poor people need help and you are worrying because a presidential candidate may go on a news program to push his/her plan for giving the needy help? This is beyond stupid!!!!!!

    Parent

    I was mimicking you (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:59:45 AM EST
    You missed the joke.

    You can;t start with smears and expect discourse.

    Not from me at any rate.

    Talk to the hand.

    Parent

    Quick question (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:48:03 AM EST
    Is Pelosi going to Iran? Faux News reported she is.

    Parent
    Big Tent (1.00 / 2) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:02:24 PM EST
    I really don't know.

    If you want to talk about reporters that make "mistakes" you should start with CBS and an infamous memo...

    The Left's continual use of the "lie" word has polarized the debate almost beyond repair. You are  supposedly a leader on an important blog. Why use imflamtory words??

    Parent

    I talked about it at the time (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:08:44 PM EST
    I supported Rather being forced out Jim.

    See, I don't judge these things by whose ox is being gored.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:38:24 PM EST
    I am impressed... and I'm not being sarcastic

    Parent
    You should not be (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    I am also for free trade, apple pie and Mom.

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:15:31 PM EST
    There is no "free" trade, apples have pesticide and mom just left with the milkman...

    ;-)

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:19:50 PM EST


    Parent
    I was mimicking Headscratcher (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:09:33 PM EST
    not making a charge.

    Context is important here Jim.

    Parent

    What a joke (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by taylormattd on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:30:43 PM EST
    The Left's continual use of the "lie" word has polarized the debate almost beyond repair.
    Too funny. This from a group that has spent decades calling anyone to the left of Jim Baker is a "traitor" on a regular basis.

    Parent
    I didn't know I was a group (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:37:07 PM EST
    or that I had spent decades on anything besides work...

    wow

    oh well

    Parent

    I didn't (none / 0) (#53)
    by taylormattd on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:52:54 PM EST
    say you were a group. Please recall that you are the one attributing things to "the Left."

    I was simply pointing out how unbelievably stupid that comment is in light of what passes for dialogue on "the Right."

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by taylormattd on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:25:18 PM EST
    a right wing troll at TalkLeft.

    Parent
    Fox News (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by taylormattd on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    is a fake news organzation. It has no purpose other than to help elect republicans and generate lies about democrats. It is nothing short of the propaganda arm of the RNC.

    Parent
    childish (none / 0) (#24)
    by HeadScratcher on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:42:33 PM EST
    This would make more sense if there weren't people such as Kondrake, Liason, Van Sustern, Colmes, etc... on the air. Heck, I watched a civil debate between O'Reilly and Sharpton last night. Did you not see the argument with Geraldo and O'Reilly?

    More debate, not less is the essense of a democracy...

    Parent

    Tee-hee (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:52:06 PM EST
     
    Kondrake, Liason, Van Sustern, Colmes

    Heh.  That about says it all.

    Did you not see the argument with Geraldo and O'Reilly?

    That reminds me.  The immigration issue is delightful because of all the prominent topics it is the one that really throws into relief the nature of the coalition that dominates the Republicans.  They'll make concessions to one another vis a vis privacy issues, taxation, adventuresome little wars, etc.  But on Immigration, they turn on one another.  Fun to watch.

    Parent

    And apparently on federally-funded (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    stem cell research.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#39)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:47:45 PM EST
    That's another one.  But it's newer.  The Immigration Issue has been a thorn in the side of Republicans for a long time now, and I would argue that it remains a far more divisive topic for them.  They really, really get mad at one another over it.

    Choose yer poision, the populist/nativist mentality or the business interests.

    Or pass the popcorn and enjoy.

    Parent

    glanton - Your turn (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:17:17 PM EST
    Four on the right at CNN?  MSNBC? NBC? CBS? ABC?

    Parent
    Not my turn yet (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:42:08 PM EST
    Here's why.

    1)Show me how in God's name Mort Kondrake or Liason are credible representatives of what you're calling the Left.  Or even of what you call liberal?  I've watched lots of Special Report.  Kondrake defends Bush and Republicans relentlessly. Not as relentlessly as Barnes or Crystal, but relentlessly. If you've ever watched the program you cannot with a straight face deny this.  

    As for Liason, show me an instance where she ever stands up to those guys.  If you watch the program at all you know that she like Kondrake far more commonly finds herself in agreement with Hume and the others.

    2)Van Sustren?  Please, please give me a break, give me a break, break me off a piece of that Kit-Kat Bar!  She's a tabloid hound, game, set, match.  

    It's the cult of the Missing White Woman, it's the sensational, it's who exactly is Anna Nicole's baby's father.  

    Yes. They say she's a "liberal" in her political views.  Maybe she really is against war profiteering and regressive taxation and gutting public education and controlling women's bodies and marginalizing homosexuals and intervening in family medical decisions.  Or at leasst maybe she has some of these convictions.  But..... drumroll.... so freaking what?  Who would know based on watching that tabloid program?

    3)Colmes.  Oh, there's a real staunch representative of Demoractic values.  Do you watch that show?  I do.  It isn't even enough to cll him Hannity's straight man.  He is Hannity's foil.  How can you deny this?  Look at the kinds of questions Colmes "tackles": Is it unpatriotic to oppose Bush's war policies?  Is Christmas under assault?  Now there's two very accurate representatives opf what passes for topic on that show.

    And the guests they bring on there?  For Chrissakes the whole thing is a Republican love fest, they bring on a couple sacrificial lambs who are not wingers and then interrupt the hell out of them.

    Honestly respond to these points about those FNC Employees/Contributors

    Parent

    I meant to say (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:44:53 PM EST
    "Honestly respond to these points about those FNC Employees/Contributors" and then it will be my turn.

    Parent
    commentators or reporters? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:49:31 PM EST
    all of faux's reporters have and show an extreme conservative bias.

    except for a pet or 2, all of their commentators show an even more conservative bias, that's why faux viewers are more ignorant than folks who get their news from other sources.

    IRT "Four on the right": sheesh, you should really learn to type into that little text box on google:
    Tucker Carlson
    Glenn Beck
    J.C. Watts
    Chris Matthews
    Suzanne Malveaux

    Parent

    Headscratcher (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:04:22 PM EST
    Why use the lie word??

    Why not say "Wrong?"

    Parent

    Lie vs wrong (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by wlgriffi on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:37:46 PM EST
    What is the difficulty in identifying a lie? Wrong indicates a mistake. Lie indicates a falsehood,moreover it's a falsehood meant to deceive. If you are unable to distinguish the difference there isn't much hope in trying to hold a rational discussion with you. BUSH Lied PERIOD. Cheney LIED PERIOD. Rice LIED PERIOD. Rumsfeld LIED PERIOD. And even more sad Powell LIED PERIOD. Enablers can go on insisting that the lies were not lies but be aware call them what you will A LIE STILL IS A LIE.

    Parent
    I was mimicking Big Tent (1.00 / 2) (#23)
    by HeadScratcher on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:39:05 PM EST
    I'm well aware that it's his opinion and not a stated fact. Big Tent, as well as many others (and myself I suppose) throw out the "lie" word instead of using 'wrong'. I was merely trying to bring the conversation to something more akin to a debate rather than an echo chamber.

    Faux News is equal to the Clinton News Network. It doesn't do anybody any good at all.

    Parent

    Where is the word lie in my post? (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    You are full of it sir.

    And your attacks are bad form.

    You are the person who introduced the word lie in this discussion.

    Parent

    I get my news from NPR and NY Times, so what do I (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:23:11 PM EST
    know re Fox News.  But it always puzzles me that people who hate Fox News seem to always know what Fox News is broadcasting.  Why watch it?  Must be for blog fodder, I figure.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:25:28 PM EST
    I watch everything.

    Parent
    I watch.... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:58:10 PM EST
    for unintentional comedy.  Fox scores high.

    I must get a kick out of endless bullsh*t, only way to explain it.

    Parent

    Another good DK diary topic w/poll, huh? (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 07:01:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Don't Liberals/ Those on the Left Promote (none / 0) (#41)
    by TearDownThisWall on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:53:47 PM EST
    dialogues with the CUBAs...Syrias....Irans...North Koreas of the world?
    Isn't the argument that we should engage with Dictatorships....so as to build bridges of understanding through direct contact.

    That if we do engage and bulid lines of communication in the countries with whom we disagree....perhaps we will reach the citizenry of these countries, as to encourage their participation in the political process, any dialogue is better than strict refusal to communicate,  blah,blah, blah??

    I am left to conclude that this is a political calculation, initiated by the Edwards camp...that in order to appeal to the "far-Left" Fox hating crowd, perhaps he (Edwards) will show those on the "Far-Left" that he deserves their support....after all, he is refusing to go on Fox.

    TearDown (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:07:06 PM EST
    With the exception (I guess) of Cuba, the talks you're alluding to represent efforts to find alternatives to War.  You may consider that a naive approach, but you can't credibly deny that this is the motive.  And it's a motive that I respect.  I'd totally have conversations with someone I loathed in order to see what could be done to prevent yet more senseless deaths by the tens of thousands.

    Nothing quite so noble can even masquerade as a motive for a Democratic politician going onto the Fox Network for grilling.  

    Oh by the way, the argument about the large audience pool is laughable as it gets.  I mean, try ascending to a Freewill Baptist pulpit in eastern Tennessee and start trying to convince your audience of the merits of evolutionary theory.  Conversely, try speaking at a homeless shelter of the importance of protecting medical insurance companies.  

    Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Parent

    Why not let Keith Olbermann Host all the Debates (none / 0) (#44)
    by TearDownThisWall on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:36:31 PM EST
    then....if you're really suggesting that the Dem candidates would only get a "grilling" if they were to go on Fox.

    Olbermann  could ask all his leading questions as per his standard MO...all the DEM party candidates could readily play along....and he could "Great Thanks" evry last one of their answers.

    No challenges-

    No debating-

    No confrontation-

    Just one big Countdown Show as per KO's aversion to talk with anybody he disagrees with.

    I can't belive the Dem party has really sunk to this level, actually

    Parent

    You throw in a straw man (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:56:54 PM EST
    But for fun, how many Republican leaders do you see going on Countdown?  They know, unless they're morons, that Olberman's hostile to them, as will be his target audience.

    But Olberman is after all only one guy on a network.  

    All the way up and down the Fox roster there's not a single show--not one!!!!--that hosts politicians whose host isn't unambiguously hostile to Democrats.  Oh, unambiguously except of course O'Reilly, who continues to insist he's not a Republican.  

    But as I said this is all straw man stuff.  The subject is, what would Democrats gain by going on Fox?  Some people, some audiences you're just not going to convince, TearDown.  That's not a partisan talking point but rather simple common sense.  

    Time, sadly, is a resource that is limited.  Why waste it on an audience who has no sympathy to your position, who is sure to vote against you?

    And TearDown, BTW:

    I responded to your little analogy re talking to hostile foreign governments.  Maybe my explanation went by you, maybe like others around here you didn't read the post but only saw someone had responded to you and so wrote something back at them.  But then , maybe you did read it and realize you couldn't fight common sense.  I don't blame ye.

    Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Parent

    What would Dems Gain by Going on FOX (none / 0) (#48)
    by TearDownThisWall on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:20:45 PM EST
    This is the 64,000 question?

    How about an audience where dems can push/ promote their ideas?

    Parent

    You ignored (none / 0) (#49)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:33:22 PM EST
    What I wrote about that audience.  I am recognizing your arguments and responsding to them, you are ignoring mine,  

    Hey, wait a minute!  That's what they do on FNC, too!  No wonder you think them such a great site for debate.

    Again, with respect to the idea of persuading FNC audience members.  

    Try going to an NRA convention sometime and promoting the idea that gun rahts are no more absolute than is free speech.

    Or, go to a burlesque show and start trying to shame people with quotes from Leviticus.

    Good luck with either of these.  Most people don't have that kind of time to waste.

    Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Parent

    Do Not DEM Pols Need to Reach as many People (none / 0) (#50)
    by TearDownThisWall on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:44:33 PM EST
    as they can?
    Obviously Fox attracts many many Dems viewers- (as well as independents and gopers).

    No...this is a Political Calculation for the Dem Party nomination by the Edwrads Camp (followed by Obama/ Hillary)....as an appeal to the "far left" Fox Haters.

    as per <<Again, with respect to the idea of persuading FNC audience members.  <p> Try going to an NRA convention sometime and promoting the idea that gun rahts are no more absolute than is free speech.

    Or, go to a burlesque show and start trying to shame people with quotes from Leviticus.>>

    I don't agree with the comparison-
    The dem Pols are invloved in a political race....and one would think the more people they reach....the more votes they get

    Parent

    I call BS (none / 0) (#52)
    by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:50:49 PM EST
    Obviously Fox attracts many many Dems viewers
    cite stats with links.

    Parent
    How do I Know FOX Attracts DEMS? (none / 0) (#56)
    by TearDownThisWall on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:26:09 PM EST
    It's anecdotal-
    but
    From the comments from all the my friends here from the left....ya'll know more about Fox than one should, if in fact ya'll never tuned in  FOX-

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#57)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:34:12 PM EST
    It's "anecdotal."  Another way of putting it is, you just say it and magically it becomes true.

    And BTW: the people on these boards, myself included, are political junkies.  AS BTD succinctly put it, we watch everything.  Whenever we have the time, anyway.  

    We watch FNC not as receptacles for their messages but to see what they're doing.  

    You're getting clobbered here by any standard of debate. Just thought I'd point that out.  Of course, it's fairer to say you're clobbering yourself because you're just making assertions whereas others are paying attention to what you write, responding to it, and making their own points all at the same time.  

    Try that approach, instead of making assertions that defy not just facts, but common sense.  

    Parent

    Uhhh (none / 0) (#58)
    by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:10:21 PM EST
    so you don't have any reason to base your opinion on other that one commenter on this thread saying he watches faux.

    Here's a hint: a couple of folks monitor faux and the rest of us don't have to. So why should we waste our beautiful minds on something like that?

    Parent

    Back it up (none / 0) (#55)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:07:03 PM EST
    Obviously Fox attracts many many Dems viewers

    It isn't just sialor and I that know you grasping at straws, here.  You seem to know it too.  

    I don't agree with the comparison-

    What we're talking about in all of these cases, hypothetical and real, is persuasion.  Some people you're just not going to persuade, and it's plain stoopid pouring resources into that direction.  It really is that simple.

    Finally, all debate over demographics aside, it hardly matters because the format prevents Democratic interlocutors from making their case anyway.  Being interrupted at every turn, and ridiculed, and therefore being refused the opportunity to make points.  Being asked questions designed to make the respondent look bad no matter what they say.  Etc.

    Another article of common sense: people don't like to be treated badly.  Maybe if Fox stopped treating these people badly they'd consider coming on.  Even in light of the audience demographic.

    Parent

    I knew Joe Wilson before you did. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Fritz on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:49:05 PM EST
    Joe Wilson was a Fox News contributor.  

    Show proof (none / 0) (#54)
    by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:55:39 PM EST
    being interviewed is not the same thing as being a contributor. If you don't beleive me ask Jeralyn if she's a contributor.

    Parent
    Obama on Fox | 64 comments (64 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment