RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate"

RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

wfsubseeking1 -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/9/2007 9:06:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway lolol right. But Domiguy needs to cite some examples when O'Reilly, or Fox News, had to make retractions or was shown to be lying? Otherwise, the whole "that network lies" crap is just blather. psst what about Geraldo getting into it with Bill about the drunk driving incident and Bill trying to make it an illegal immigrant issue? seeking

Tuomas -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/9/2007 9:09:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wfsubseeking1 quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway I disagree. They aren't slanted, they are conservative. Conservatism is a political philosophy. Why shouldn't the people on Fox ask questions that take their political phiolosophy into account? As i had said previously why would you be on a network that you have contrary beliefs to and add to their coffers? Totally baffles me and if the other two major candidates have already done the above why not follow suit? Many who have a more liberal view as myself i think would understand my rationale. In no way would i endorse something i totally abhor by appearing on them and by doing so be able them to have any financial gain. seeking Why the obsession over financial gain? The reason they sponsor an event, is because it costs money to carry out. In fact, Fox would probably loose money by sponsoring a Democrat debate, since, as you pointed out, Foxians won't listen to what anyone in the debate has to say. More "liberal" than yourself? I thought the liberal credo was to love -not "abhor", or hate. I guess things have changed.

wfsubseeking1 -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/9/2007 9:13:47 PM)
From a personal standpoint being on a network would endorse their standpoint. Why would You want to endorse something you are against? i think many "liberals" are for standing up for principles and that is what the Democratic candidates i believe are doing so. seeking

popeye1250 -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/9/2007 9:20:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wfsubseeking1 From a personal standpoint being on a network would endorse their standpoint. Why would You want to endorse something you are against? i think many "liberals" are for standing up for principles and that is what the Democratic candidates i believe are doing so. seeking That may be so but a lot of Democrats aren't "Liberals." I know a lot of Democrats and I certainly wouldn't call them liberal.

domiguy -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/9/2007 9:26:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway Cite your sources and your examples for that kind of libel. :) Heres one: http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=20438 As to the number of misconceptions held by their audiences, Fox far outscored all of its rivals. A whopping 45 percent of its viewers believed all three misperceptions, while the other commercial networks scored between 12 percent and 16 percent. Only nine percent of readers believed all three, while only four percent of the NPR/PBS audience did. Oh my...Heres another http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-geiger/fox-news-they-distort-w_b_34251.html They asked poll respondents about weapons of mass destruction being found in Iraq and about alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. And here's the least shocking thing you'll hear today: The most ignorant people surveyed said they use Fox News as their primary news source. [image]http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e164/bobgeiger/pipa_poll.gif[/image] I think that the average Fox News viewer also believed in 2004 that John Kerry had weekly strategy meetings with Osama bin Laden and that the International Astronomical Union's recent downgrading of Pluto, represented a liberal attack on the loveable cartoon dog. And our most recent evidence would suggest that Fox News has gotten even worse in the three years since this poll was done. And we're not manufacturing news -- Fox gives us evidence to back up that assertion each and every day. How about this for libel....watch away....lemmings.

lockedaway -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/9/2007 9:34:42 PM)
Hey...you ran a query. And you believe that article right? Do you see the liberal bias in that article? If you don't, that's ok. Although I DO acknowledge the conservative perspective of Fox News. ''This is a dangerously revealing study,'' said Marvin Kalb, a former television correspondent and a senior fellow of the Shorenstein Centre on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University." The quote is from the cite you just pulled; extremely liberal. It supports your bias and that's fine. It still did not give a specific instance of a report that had to be retracted. Did you even notice that or were you chomping at the bit too post it?

lockedaway -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/9/2007 9:35:58 PM)
Wait a second!!!!! You are going to cite Irianna Huffington? Why don't you cite George Soros. Careful, pal, you are skating on the edge of irrelevance.

domiguy -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/9/2007 9:41:07 PM)
I don't like the source but the info contained was not composed by them and is relevant.

Tuomas -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/9/2007 9:43:53 PM)
Domy, I'm impressed. You try to prove bias in one group by citing the bias in another. [:D] You guys are fun. Supposing what you say is correct, shouldn't it then be even more imparative that Obama educate the masses of Fox viewers? Or is this subject just a platform to voice your own opinions about Fox, and has nothing to do with Obama at all?

domiguy -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/9/2007 9:47:28 PM)
I think it is a little of both...lol...I do respect his stand not to legitimize a network that openly has an agenda...We will see if it hurts him. Only time will tell....I'm tired to get some sleep... All take care.

Tuomas -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/9/2007 9:52:07 PM)
hehe, well, have fun! May you dream of beautiful ladies doing your bidding [:D]

lockedaway -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/9/2007 10:01:15 PM)
"Only time will tell....I'm tired to get some sleep..." Told ya!!! [:)]

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/10/2007 12:59:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy Cowards and Hypocrites are what Fox has built an empire upon....Why give Fox the chance to host a fair and balanced debate?...That is the tag line right? I have no problem with candidates answering the hard questions. the people who watch FOX do not want to hear the answers to those "hard questions" or else they would never be watching this network. Huh? The only thing I can figure out you could possibly mean by this is that Fox listeners would not be happy with the answers to these "hard questions". If I disagree with a candidates stance, it really doesn't matter to Me what network televises a debate. A debate should give each candidate a way to seel the voter on why their platform is the best. Of course I want to hear the answers to those "hard questions". And I believe, in a debate, the answers will be the same. Perhaps some questions are phrased a bit differently. Shrug I don't feel there is good debate going on, if the questions are pre-approved and certain ones are thrown out as too controversial and/or uncomfortable for the candidates in question. Do you? Aren't we then just creating a PR scenario? The main difference I see is that you will just have a different set of commentators ripping (excuse, Me...I meant to say "analyzing") the answers after that fact. Is that the part you don't like? Like others, I would defintiely wonder why these candidates are afraid to and refuse to put their ideas and intended policies out there, regardless of the outlet. It's still an outlet.

dogthing -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/10/2007 4:47:27 PM)
After the Conrad Black prosecution, candidates would be well advised to stay as far from Rupert Murdoch and his news empire as possible, regardless of whether they are Republican, Democrat or Independent. Murdoch has a reputation for being much more politically and financially adventurous than Black ever was, and if Black's been successfully prosecuted for racketeering Murdoch might be next. This isn't about left-wing or right-wing bias, it's about news being controlled so that the head of a media conglomerate can buy influence with politicians over what laws get passed and what business deals don't get scrutinised. Dealing with Murdoch is like dealing with the mafia, he'll do a politician a favour, but he'll expect a favour back sometime.

domiguy -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/10/2007 6:21:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy Cowards and Hypocrites are what Fox has built an empire upon....Why give Fox the chance to host a fair and balanced debate?...That is the tag line right? I have no problem with candidates answering the hard questions. the people who watch FOX do not want to hear the answers to those "hard questions" or else they would never be watching this network. Huh? The only thing I can figure out you could possibly mean by this is that Fox listeners would not be happy with the answers to these "hard questions". If I disagree with a candidates stance, it really doesn't matter to Me what network televises a debate. A debate should give each candidate a way to seel the voter on why their platform is the best. Of course I want to hear the answers to those "hard questions". And I believe, in a debate, the answers will be the same. Perhaps some questions are phrased a bit differently. Shrug I don't feel there is good debate going on, if the questions are pre-approved and certain ones are thrown out as too controversial and/or uncomfortable for the candidates in question. Do you? Aren't we then just creating a PR scenario? The main difference I see is that you will just have a different set of commentators ripping (excuse, Me...I meant to say "analyzing") the answers after that fact. Is that the part you don't like? Like others, I would defintiely wonder why these candidates are afraid to and refuse to put their ideas and intended policies out there, regardless of the outlet. It's still an outlet. No. What I mean is that FOX does not challenge it's viewers...It regurgitates the exact same beliefs as the viewers who swallow this vile puke happily and willingly...Never do they have to worry about a thought that calls in to question their beleif system...This is why people who utilize Fox as their only source for news are the most likely to be "wrong" on the issues.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/13/2007 1:13:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy No. What I mean is that FOX does not challenge it's viewers...It regurgitates the exact same beliefs as the viewers who swallow this vile puke happily and willingly...Never do they have to worry about a thought that calls in to question their beleif system...This is why people who utilize Fox as their only source for news are the most likely to be "wrong" on the issues. Sorry, I have been so busy the last few days, I haven't even been here. But I do want to respond. I don't see a whole of difference between the two sides. People are either going to think or not. I do feel, quite strongly, that I have seen more on the "right" side as to calling out certain certain activites/votes, changes in political promises, regardless of party or supposed political stance. I rarely see that on the "left" side. Each side has their basic ideas and seeks to elect the candiates that will most strongly support the largest part of those ideas. Whether that actually happens in the end remains to be seen. The track record of Congress, past and present, has not done much to encourage the American people that a campaign platform is anything more than temporary venue to get votes. All bets seem to be out the window after the seat is taken. And I hear much outcry regarding that on the "conservative" sides of things. I don't see the same on the "liberal side of things". There always seems to be a way to excuse or ignore the faux pas. Just because the candidate cannot make their case on Fox to certain audience members, why do you feel that this same candidate can make the case to those same people on another network? I am failing to understand the difference. The only arguement that I do think makes any sense, even though I think it is misguided, is the one that states that the political agenda of Fox (or whatever Network...they do all have their leanings!) is so repugnant to them, they do not wish to assist in any way in helping them to enjoy a profit. But I don't see the conservatives refusing to participate on networks that are, perhaps, equally repugnant to them. Shrug

Sinergy -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/13/2007 1:56:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tuomas From a strategic point of view, I find it intersting that Obama is refusing to address people from "the other side". If he wants to portray himself as a "leader of all America", it shouldn't behoove him to shun certain groups -and Fox does have a rather large following. He is probably more than happy to address people from the "other side." I suspect the "other side" will refuse to debate him unless it is on the uber-right-wing Fox network. A perfect example of why he may be unwilling to do it there is exemplified by O'Reilly shouting down and calling a traitor the son of somebody who died in the WTC, after this person had the temerity to suggest on O'Reilly's program that perhaps going to war was a poor response to the terrorist attack. I tend to think it is a Mexican standoff, Tuomas, and neither side is more or less right. Sinergy

farglebargle -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/13/2007 3:05:08 PM)
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/12/open-thread-444/ Well, after seeing what Fox does to his quote, "I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground.", why should anyone even pretend to believe that Fox is the New Pravda?

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/14/2007 11:11:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Tuomas From a strategic point of view, I find it intersting that Obama is refusing to address people from "the other side". If he wants to portray himself as a "leader of all America", it shouldn't behoove him to shun certain groups -and Fox does have a rather large following. He is probably more than happy to address people from the "other side." I suspect the "other side" will refuse to debate him unless it is on the uber-right-wing Fox network. A perfect example of why he may be unwilling to do it there is exemplified by O'Reilly shouting down and calling a traitor the son of somebody who died in the WTC, after this person had the temerity to suggest on O'Reilly's program that perhaps going to war was a poor response to the terrorist attack. I tend to think it is a Mexican standoff, Tuomas, and neither side is more or less right. Sinergy And I have a personal dislike of Bill O'Reilly, because even if I agree with some of his points, I always hate the way he browbeats and shouts and screams. It is a big turn off. But, this type of behavior would not be appropriate or permitted at a debate. There is a moderator only. And they do not yell or give opinions. They simply read the questions and call times. As I said previously, the only real difference is the talking heads who are "analyzing" the debate afterwards. And doesn't everybody do that anyway? Hosting Network notwithstanding, everybody watches and gets their 2 cents in after the fact. The candidates do not need to be present for that. I do disagree with you that the "other side" would refuse to debate unless it is on Fox. I have never seen them refuse before, and I see no reason why they should begin refusing now. Nobody has yet shown Me any good reason for genuine candidates for the the presidential primary to refuse to debate on Fox. And I do take these sorts of things into consideration as I weigh My one and only vote.

juliaoceania -> RE: "Obama to skip Fox-sponsored debate" (4/14/2007 11:18:57 PM)
quote: And I have a personal dislike of Bill O'Reilly, because even if I agree with some of his points, I always hate the way he browbeats and shouts and screams. It is a big turn off. But, this type of behavior would not be appropriate or permitted at a debate. There is a moderator only. And they do not yell or give opinions. They simply read the questions and call times. As I said previously, the only real difference is the talking heads who are "analyzing" the debate afterwards. And doesn't everybody do that anyway? Hosting Network notwithstanding, everybody watches and gets their 2 cents in after the fact. The candidates do not need to be present for that. Here is the thing, by going on a debate that would encourage people to blur the line between being news anchors and offering political opinion that would be giving tacit approval of such "journalism". Fox tends to do this more than any other news outlet, although others do too. Lets say O'Reilly moderated the debate,.... kinda confusing isn't it... what is he, respected news anchor journalist, or raging anger management candidate? I do not think the debates are serious anyways.. If they were they would allow third party candidates

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875