imported_Shivetya
Platinum Member
- Jul 7, 2005
- 2,978
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: piasabird
Fox news is more reputable than the New York Times.
thats not being nice to Fox
Originally posted by: piasabird
Fox news is more reputable than the New York Times.
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 guess when you are standing so far to the right, every thing to the left of you looks liberal.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by: Termagant
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Fern
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.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.
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.
Originally posted by: daveymark
Edwards alienated more potential voters by doing this. Not like he had a chance anyway.
You study that ?proves? Fox viewers are not as informed or as smart as viewers of other networks does nothing to prove your claims.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.
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?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.
I think you need a little more education on Brit Hume, his background and his credentials.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.
So he busted a major story about Nixon, so much for his right wing bias huh?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.
We all know how much of a right wing bias the Emmy?s and American Journalism Review have right? :roll: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.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think you need a little more education on Brit Hume, his background and his credentials.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.
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.
So he busted a major story about Nixon, so much for his right wing bias huh?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.
We all know how much of a right wing bias the Emmy?s and American Journalism Review have right? :roll: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I don't give a crap where you get your news from. Why are you so concerned about everyone else?
