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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Caminetto

Senior member
Jul 29, 2001
821
49
91
Why is it that it's normally the conservative republicans who don't see the obvious bias? My lord, most moderates think Fox is a joke.

I guess when you are standing so far to the right, every thing to the left of you looks liberal.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: eskimospy
The phrasing of the questions is the key. You can ask about the same topic two different ways, one that lets the person promote his agenda, and the other that makes him defend himself. It isn't so much as to who would win the debate, as to the sound bytes, etc that would come from it.

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

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

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


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

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

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

Fern

I think this whole thing has more to do with Edward's camp having an axe to grind with Fox than Fox being a right-wing media outlet. What is the backstory on the feud?
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,606
4,699
136
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: dyna
Hopefully Edwards doesn't take that mentality to politics. Oh that ethic group isn't important so I'm not going to listen to there needs. Oh that state isn't important so i'm not going to worry about their welfare etc... He needs to be a man and be willing to face whatever adversary approaches instead of being a whiney tard.

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

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

I agree, just thought dyna's take was a bit odd.
 

Termagant

Senior member
Mar 10, 2006
765
0
0
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: eskimospy
The phrasing of the questions is the key. You can ask about the same topic two different ways, one that lets the person promote his agenda, and the other that makes him defend himself. It isn't so much as to who would win the debate, as to the sound bytes, etc that would come from it.

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

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

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


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

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

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

Fern

I think this whole thing has more to do with Edward's camp having an axe to grind with Fox than Fox being a right-wing media outlet. What is the backstory on the feud?

Probably the fact that Ann Coulter was going to be the guest moderator.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Genx87
lmao nothing screams I can't take the heat then running like a sissy from a debate because the mediator doesnt tow your parties line.

I think it is safe to safe Edwards fits your atypical pussy liberal image.

Do you understand what "atypical" means?

Hint: We can assume you are trying to insult Edwards and / or The Democratic Party / Liberals, so you may want to edit your post.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: Caminetto
Why is it that it's normally the conservative republicans who don't see the obvious bias? My lord, most moderates think Fox is a joke.

I guess when you are standing so far to the right, every thing to the left of you looks liberal.

examples please of foxnews bias. oh and i would like to see a comparison between foxnews bias to CNN bias.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Caminetto
Why is it that it's normally the conservative republicans who don't see the obvious bias? My lord, most moderates think Fox is a joke.

I guess when you are standing so far to the right, every thing to the left of you looks liberal.

examples please of foxnews bias. oh and i would like to see a comparison between foxnews bias to CNN bias.

http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

Go to about page 15 according to the PDF. I will admit this could show two things however. It could either show right wing bias by fox news... or just incredibly incredibly bad reporting and journalism. I guess I'll let you choose. Fox is an embarassment as a news agency.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: moshquerade
I am surprised your two poll choices weren't "No" and "No". :laugh:

FOX seems so to the Right because the others seem so to the Left.

you're a moron
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Caminetto
Why is it that it's normally the conservative republicans who don't see the obvious bias? My lord, most moderates think Fox is a joke.

I guess when you are standing so far to the right, every thing to the left of you looks liberal.

examples please of foxnews bias. oh and i would like to see a comparison between foxnews bias to CNN bias.

I think everytime we have a "news bias" thread there is someone calling for examples and replies FULL of examples.

do a search.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Termagant
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: eskimospy
The phrasing of the questions is the key. You can ask about the same topic two different ways, one that lets the person promote his agenda, and the other that makes him defend himself. It isn't so much as to who would win the debate, as to the sound bytes, etc that would come from it.

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

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

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


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

Yeah, I must agree that he thinks it's good move for him, of course. He's a very calculating fellow. As far as crapping on Fox news, see above remark.
One last point. I thought the Western states, which have typically voted Repub and thus one must assume regularly watch Fox, were being heavily targeted by Dems in this upcoming election. Hence, Edwards appears to be contradicting his own party's strategy.

I think this whole thing has more to do with Edward's camp having an axe to grind with Fox than Fox being a right-wing media outlet. What is the backstory on the feud?

Probably the fact that Ann Coulter was going to be the guest moderator.

Are you serious? :shocked:
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: ayabe
Here you go smart guy:

Link to Study

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

As a general rule I don't spread FUD.
You study that ?proves? Fox viewers are not as informed or as smart as viewers of other networks does nothing to prove your claims.
It is in fact a study of people?s perceptions about the war in Iraq.
Right from the report
An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions.
On Iraq and al Qaeda: There is a lot of evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda did have a relationship of some kind in the past. Remember all the stories about how Saddam had cut ties with al Qaeda and Osama? Well please explain how he could have cut ties if he never had them in the first place?
On WMD: While we never found the massive stock piles promised by Bush and Co. We have had dozens of smaller finds ranging from chemical warheads to the parts of their nuclear program buried in someone?s garden. So the question of whether WMD have been found in Iraq is open to interpretation. Depends on what your definition of WMD is, as Clinton might say.

What is interesting is that these ?misconceptions? are all Democratic talking points on the war. Which would explain why viewers of the more liberal sources would not have any of the misconceptions.
The only thing you study seems to prove is that if you listen to or watch PBS or CNN you are more likely to know what the Democratic are saying about the war.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
If you think Brit Hume is a good impartial moderator, maybe you should watch him every Sunday morning when he reveals himself as an ultra right wing talking head. The reason why Edwards doesn't go on fox is precisely the reason why Cheney and Bush ALWAYS go on fox. (with one or two exceptions I think). They know they are going into friendly territory there, the same as Edwards knows he would be debating in a hostile forum.

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

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

The guy spent 23 years at ABC before joining Fox News, not sure how an ?ultra right wing talking head? survived that long at one of the big three.
Here is some other information on Hume, I?ll bold the parts that seems to show him NOT being what you claim he is.
As a reporter for Anderson's column, Hume uncovered an internal corporate memo indicating that the 1972 Republican National Convention had been underwritten by ITT and that in exchange an antitrust case had been dropped by the Richard Nixon administration shortly thereafter. Later Anderson published a series of classified documents indicating the Nixon administration, contrary to its public pronouncements, had tipped in favor of Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. After those revelations Anderson and his staff, including Hume and his wife and children, were placed under surveillance by the CIA. The agents codenamed Hume "Eggnog" and observed him and his family going about their daily business. This came to light during the Gerald Ford administration in congressional hearings, and as the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
So he busted a major story about Nixon, so much for his right wing bias huh?
In 1991 Hume won an Emmy Award for his Gulf War coverage. He was also twice named "Best in the Business" as a White House correspondent by the American Journalism Review.
We all know how much of a right wing bias the Emmy?s and American Journalism Review have right? :roll:
 

johnnobts

Golden Member
Jun 26, 2005
1,105
0
71
If you think Brit Hume is a good impartial moderator, maybe you should watch him every Sunday morning when he reveals himself as an ultra right wing talking head. The reason why Edwards doesn't go on fox is precisely the reason why Cheney and Bush ALWAYS go on fox. (with one or two exceptions I think). They know they are going into friendly territory there, the same as Edwards knows he would be debating in a hostile forum.
_______________________________

Did you watch Britt Hume with the last Democratic Pres Primary? Doubt it. He was terrific. Chris Matthews is a liberal hack, a Carter staffer, he did a lousy job moderating the debates last election cycle. I'm not saying Britt isn't conservative. But his questions are reasonable and not innapropriate.

John "I am woman" Edwards is just a sissy. Plain and simple.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: eskimospy
If you think Brit Hume is a good impartial moderator, maybe you should watch him every Sunday morning when he reveals himself as an ultra right wing talking head. The reason why Edwards doesn't go on fox is precisely the reason why Cheney and Bush ALWAYS go on fox. (with one or two exceptions I think). They know they are going into friendly territory there, the same as Edwards knows he would be debating in a hostile forum.

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

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

The guy spent 23 years at ABC before joining Fox News, not sure how an ?ultra right wing talking head? survived that long at one of the big three.
Here is some other information on Hume, I?ll bold the parts that seems to show him NOT being what you claim he is.
As a reporter for Anderson's column, Hume uncovered an internal corporate memo indicating that the 1972 Republican National Convention had been underwritten by ITT and that in exchange an antitrust case had been dropped by the Richard Nixon administration shortly thereafter. Later Anderson published a series of classified documents indicating the Nixon administration, contrary to its public pronouncements, had tipped in favor of Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. After those revelations Anderson and his staff, including Hume and his wife and children, were placed under surveillance by the CIA. The agents codenamed Hume "Eggnog" and observed him and his family going about their daily business. This came to light during the Gerald Ford administration in congressional hearings, and as the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
So he busted a major story about Nixon, so much for his right wing bias huh?
In 1991 Hume won an Emmy Award for his Gulf War coverage. He was also twice named "Best in the Business" as a White House correspondent by the American Journalism Review.
We all know how much of a right wing bias the Emmy?s and American Journalism Review have right? :roll:

Uhmm, if you don't think he's an ultra right wing talking head, I encourage you to listen to him. He will be on this sunday I imagine. See what you think afterwards.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think Edwards has called a spade a spade---you can't have clearly slanted commentary and still label yourself as a legitimate news channel----you can have it one way or the other but not both.

so how can any of the cable news shows call themselves news?


they are ALL slanted.

CNN is biased to the left (Anderson) and to the right (Dobbs), but mostly they're straight reporting.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Anyone who honestly compares CNN or MSNBC to Fox News is an absolute joke of a poster. Doesn't get sadder than that. And it's well known that much of the American media does a poor job of reporting period, taking bias into account or not. I'm talking about just plain old investigative journalism and intellectual honesty in reporting, and not this rush to be the first to report news or the first to report unimportant news (Anna Nicole Smith). But Fox News? There hasn't been a worse news network in all of U.S. history, dating back to the 1940's, and I dare any of the cognitively challenged Fox-supporters here to refute that with logical argumentation. I bet I'll hear crickets.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Anyone who honestly compares CNN or MSNBC to Fox News is an absolute joke of a poster. Doesn't get sadder than that. And it's well known that much of the American media does a poor job of reporting period, taking bias into account or not. I'm talking about just plain old investigative journalism and intellectual honesty in reporting, and not this rush to be the first to report news or the first to report unimportant news (Anna Nicole Smith). But Fox News? There hasn't been a worse news network in all of U.S. history, dating back to the 1940's, and I dare any of the cognitively challenged Fox-supporters here to refute that with logical argumentation. I bet I'll hear crickets.

Y'know... when you have to resort to calling people names... which seems to be all you can do to explain the success of Fox since only idiots would ever watch that channel...

"All the dumb people watch Fox... and there are a lot of dumb people in this country... hyuk hyuk..."

You sound like an idiot.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Anyone who honestly compares CNN or MSNBC to Fox News is an absolute joke of a poster. Doesn't get sadder than that. And it's well known that much of the American media does a poor job of reporting period, taking bias into account or not. I'm talking about just plain old investigative journalism and intellectual honesty in reporting, and not this rush to be the first to report news or the first to report unimportant news (Anna Nicole Smith). But Fox News? There hasn't been a worse news network in all of U.S. history, dating back to the 1940's, and I dare any of the cognitively challenged Fox-supporters here to refute that with logical argumentation. I bet I'll hear crickets.

Y'know... when you have to resort to calling people names... which seems to be all you can do to explain the success of Fox since only idiots would ever watch that channel...

"All the dumb people watch Fox... and there are a lot of dumb people in this country... hyuk hyuk..."

You sound like an idiot.

Like I said, crickets.

And FYI, my case for Fox News being a joke was supported on page 1. See Czar's post if you're seeking enlightenment.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
As far as the ratings reasoning for Fox is concerned:

1) CNN is the more watched network, not Fox News.
2) Even if Fox News were #1, can you explain in detail how that proves it's content is reasonable, dispassionate, or intellectually honest? No, of course you can't.
3) Did I already mention you have to be cognitively-challenged to believe Fox News is a legitimate source of information? Just checking.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
As far as the ratings reasoning for Fox is concerned:

1) CNN is the more watched network, not Fox News.
2) Even if Fox News were #1, can you explain in detail how that proves it's content is reasonable, dispassionate, or intellectually honest? No, of course you can't.
3) Did I already mention you have to be cognitively-challenged to believe Fox News is a legitimate source of information? Just checking.

Hyuk Hyuk... Those dumb Fox viewers.

:roll: Grow up.

I don't give a crap where you get your news from. Why are you so concerned about everyone else?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

I don't give a crap where you get your news from. Why are you so concerned about everyone else?

You must have me confused with someone else, since you were the one that replied to my post and, funnily enough, proved my point in the process.