They probably want a Demo in the White House because they are running out of Republican jokes.
God, I know. I think my Bush Hate Level actually went down a little simply because it's so exhausting having to process all these new reasons for it day in and day out.
Fox is to news as American Idol is to music, so I find it to be a valid comparison. Nothing's ever one to one, after all.
I believe that the more Fox News's bias becomes evident (and let's face it, many people still don't consider them to be "conservative"), the more viewers it will lose. It's a tabloid station that I believe got many of it's viewers - the ones that pushed it past other stations in ratings - simply because they waved the most flags and had the flashiest red, white, and blue graphics whooshing past the screen following 9-11. That will eventually wear off (and, if I'm not mistaken, it's already starting to). Like I said, this is the challenge.
I agree with most of this. But where I disagree, is that I dont think not appearing at the debate, or not going on their shows, or whatever, is going to point out this bias. I think Fox loyalists will look at this as nothing more than the dems being scared of Fox. I think it is much more effective in making Fox's bias evident by actually going on the shows, and this debate, and challenging that bias right to the Fox viewers.
But my point was, that Fox should not be dismissed just because of how we look at them. A very significant portion of the country does find them credible. By simply dismissing them, these candidates are more or less letting Fox's credibility issues go unchallenged.
A significant portion of FOX viewers still believe that 9/11 is the reason we went to war with Iraq. They believe that Saddam was behind it! FOX is guilty of informing its viewers false info time, and time again. For that reason alone, is reason enough for any legit candidate for presidency to decline any debate, let alone a DEMOCRATIC debate on a channel known for misinforming the public.
A significant portion of FOX viewers still believe that 9/11 is the reason we went to war with Iraq. They believe that Saddam was behind it! FOX is guilty of informing its viewers false info time, and time again. For that reason alone, is reason enough for any legit candidate for presidency to decline any debate, let alone a DEMOCRATIC debate on a channel known for misinforming the public.
Yeah, I would hate for people to go on the channel and call them on their bullshit. Its much easier to just avoid it and hope it will go away. But that is just being naive.
No it isnt. Do you find Fox credible? I dont. Does your opinion of Fox change if the dems do this debate or not? Mine doesnt. Do you think it changes the opinions of Fox loyalists because the Dems wont go on? I seriously doubt it. This does nothing to challenge Fox's credibility. It just makes the dems look scared IMO.
Well, that's your opinion, and I won't deny you that. My opinion happens to be different. I see the Fox style as detrimental to all politics; and for the record I would openly support the Republicans' refusing to do a debate there too.
And no, I don't think it will change the opinions of Fox loyalists - and neither would the debate change their opinion of Democrats, so what's the net benefit for them if they do appear? Also, I don't think the "loyalists" are a majority of Fox's viewers.
A significant portion of FOX viewers still believe that 9/11 is the reason we went to war with Iraq. They believe that Saddam was behind it! FOX is guilty of informing its viewers false info time, and time again. For that reason alone, is reason enough for any legit candidate for presidency to decline any debate, let alone a DEMOCRATIC debate on a channel known for misinforming the public.
I think it's something like 13% of people polled, not Fox viewers just random people, believed that Iraq had ties to 9/11. That is far from being a significant portion of the Fox News veiwership. I'm not a fan of Fox News but let's be realistic here.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
But it does give these candidates a chance to reach a very large audience that probably isnt paying much attention to them at this point. And I think they are missing out on their opportunity to try and reel in some disgruntled conservatives, or especially moderates.
FOX's audience are conservative, christian viewers who like Bush and everything he stands for. They are hardly open-minded enough to even hear out a democrat. That's a fact.
Yeah, I would hate for people to go on the channel and call them on their bullshit. Its much easier to just avoid it and hope it will go away. But that is just being naive.
Clinton's way of calling them on their bullshit is more effective. In fact, I honestly think that if the Democrats appeared on Fox for a debate, it would hurt them more than it would help. Again, that's not because I don't think Fox would ask honest and legitimate questions during the debate - but because it would help out their non-debate programs which can and do lay on the anti-Democratic bullshit without challenge. Only then, they'd be able to say "but we're not ripping on them because of our bias. I mean, we did host one of their debates before."
FOX's audience are conservative, christian viewers who like Bush and everything he stands for. They are hardly open-minded enough to even hear out a democrat. That's a fact.
Good lord, you make a post like this about a group of people being open minded and then proceed by stereotyping the whole damn group. Not exactly the most open minded statement you just made. And plus, you are wrong. I watch Fox on occasion, because I think it is entertaining. I also read enough to where I dont fall into believing their BS, but I do find it entertaining at times. And I know several others who watch Fox who dont like Bush. Your statement is just stupid, in all honesty. If you werent so narrowminded you could see that.
Clinton's way of calling them on their bullshit is more effective. In fact, I honestly think that if the Democrats appeared on Fox for a debate, it would hurt them more than it would help. Again, that's not because I don't think Fox would ask honest and legitimate questions during the debate - but because it would help out their non-debate programs which can and do lay on the anti-Democratic bullshit without challenge. Only then, they'd be able to say "but we're not ripping on them because of our bias. I mean, we did host one of their debates before."
We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I dont see how reaching a large # of viewers can possibly hurt. And despite what the previous poster said, there are a ton of moderate and conservatives who are fed up with Bush and the republicans. I definately think if the dems went on and did well they could convince some of these viewers to at least consider them in the next presidential election.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I dont see how reaching a large # of viewers can possibly hurt. And despite what the previous poster said, there are a ton of moderate and conservatives who are fed up with Bush and the republicans. I definately think if the dems went on and did well they could convince some of these viewers to at least consider them in the next presidential election.
If they are interested in debates they just need to change the channel. I assume if they have access to fox news they probably have the other 24 hour news networks also. The only thing they will be missing is the anti-democrat color commentary.
FOX's audience are conservative, christian viewers who like Bush and everything he stands for. They are hardly open-minded enough to even hear out a democrat. That's a fact.
Fox's audience is definitely that, but it is more than that. It is mainstream American, like it or not.
Fox has the highest cable news channel ratings by far in every time slot. A candidate would have to be a dipshit to forego that kind of exposure.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
If they are interested in debates they just need to change the channel. I assume if they have access to fox news they probably have the other 24 hour news networks also. The only thing they will be missing is the anti-democrat color commentary.
Well, FOx sucks, but I hardly consider CNN or MSNBC bastions of great news service either.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I dont see how reaching a large # of viewers can possibly hurt. And despite what the previous poster said, there are a ton of moderate and conservatives who are fed up with Bush and the republicans. I definately think if the dems went on and did well they could convince some of these viewers to at least consider them in the next presidential election.
Possibly. But then you would have to assume that these viewers won't watch the debates if they're on another station. And if that's the case, Democrats appearing on Fox for a debate won't change any of their minds anyway.
But, yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree, and I've no problem with that. We'll just have to wait and see if this boycott plays any real part in the election over the next year and a half.
Fox's audience is definitely that, but it is more than that. It is mainstream American, like it or not.
Fox has the highest cable news channel ratings by far in every time slot. A candidate would have to be a dipshit to forego that kind of exposure.
Not necessarily. Fox's viewership has dropped by roughly a quarter over the last year. It's still "number one," but mainstream America, like it or not, is changing.
Not necessarily. Fox's viewership has dropped by roughly a quarter over the last year. It's still "number one," but mainstream America, like it or not, is changing.
Number one is number one in terms of viewership, therefore exposure. The point remains, to forego that exposure seems like a stupid move when a campaign is all about exposure. Just about every campaign dollar goes toward increasing exposure.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Number one is number one in terms of viewership, therefore exposure. The point remains, to forego that exposure seems like a stupid move when a campaign is all about exposure. Just about every campaign dollar goes toward increasing exposure.
but you're talking about a democratic primary that 90% of fox's viewership will not be participating in anyway. why bother? maybe you'd have a point if this was a general election, but it's not. it's campaigning for the democratic ticket which is decided solely by democrats. the only purpose it might serve is very long term... trying to look reasonable to the fox audience before being pitted against their conservative standard-bearer. but that's a dubious incentive at best.
but you're talking about a democratic primary that 90% of fox's viewership will not be participating in anyway. why bother? maybe you'd have a point if this was a general election, but it's not. it's campaigning for the democratic ticket which is decided solely by democrats. the only purpose it might serve is very long term... trying to look reasonable to the fox audience before being pitted against their conservative standard-bearer. but that's a dubious incentive at best.
Exactly. Now Fox gets to host a Democratic debate without any of the top three Democrats ... I hope they have fun with that. Fox hasn't dealt fairly with the Democratic party in general, and certainly not with these three candidates in particular ... why would they want to help Fox make more money?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Exactly. Now Fox gets to host a Democratic debate without any of the top three Democrats ... I hope they have fun with that. Fox hasn't dealt fairly with the Democratic party in general, and certainly not with these three candidates in particular ... why would they want to help Fox make more money?
Because it isnt about Fox. You dont participate in debates to help the Networks, you do it to help yourself.
Number one is number one in terms of viewership, therefore exposure. The point remains, to forego that exposure seems like a stupid move when a campaign is all about exposure. Just about every campaign dollar goes toward increasing exposure.
But, again, you have to assume that these viewers wouldn't watch the debate on another channel. And, if they wouldn't watch the debate on another channel, then they're not the Democrat's target audience, and there's 0% chance they'd vote Democratic anyway. Plus, we're talking about this, right? We can argue about how it will effect them in the long run, but they're getting exposure by openly dissing Fox. Hell, it's probably more exposure then they would get for a lousy little primary debate.
But, again, you have to assume that these viewers wouldn't watch the debate on another channel. And, if they wouldn't watch the debate on another channel, then they're not the Democrat's target audience, and there's 0% chance they'd vote Democratic anyway. Plus, we're talking about this, right? We can argue about how it will effect them in the long run, but they're getting exposure by openly dissing Fox. Hell, it's probably more exposure then they would get for a lousy little primary debate.
I still think they are throwing away a chance to reach out to a lot of disgruntled moderates and conservatives. And there is no way this is giving them more exposure than they would get participating in a debate on Fox.
We can argue about how it will effect them in the long run, but they're getting exposure by openly dissing Fox. Hell, it's probably more exposure then they would get for a lousy little primary debate.
very good point!!!
if you want to reach the moderate audience that may be in limbo for this upcoming election, why wouldnt you do the Fox debate?? it just blows my mind
it just shows that they lack leadership and if the platform for opposition arises they will run
it just shows that they lack leadership and if the platform for opposition arises they will run
The "opposition" statement maybe, though I disagree - but how does this show a lack of leadership? In fact, it has nothing to do with leadership at all - lack of or otherwise.
I still think they are throwing away a chance to reach out to a lot of disgruntled moderates and conservatives. And there is no way this is giving them more exposure than they would get participating in a debate on Fox.
Conservatives won't vote for them. Fox's 25% decline in viewership over the last year shows that "disgruntled moderates" are just as likely to watch the debate on CNN as on Fox.
then again, how does this help teh candidates? did you read the post she quoted? or do you just not have a logical response to it?
Dont be an asshole. I gave a perfectly logical response, if you cant see that that, its your own shortcoming, not mine. Im sorry I dont agree with you, but my logic is sound.
She said "why would they want to help Fox make more money?". And I responded with "Because it isnt about Fox. You dont participate in debates to help the Networks, you do it to help yourself."
Im not sure what is so illogical about that. If you dont agree fine, but you dont need to be an asshole to me because of your inability to see the logic behind my statement.
Dont be an asshole. I gave a perfectly logical response, if you cant see that that, its your own shortcoming, not mine. Im sorry I dont agree with you, but my logic is sound.
She said "why would they want to help Fox make more money?". And I responded with "Because it isnt about Fox. You dont participate in debates to help the Networks, you do it to help yourself."
Im not sure what is so illogical about that. If you dont agree fine, but you dont need to be an asshole to me because of your inability to see the logic behind my statement.
They can help themselves just as much by debating on another network. Debating on Fox only helps Fox.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
But, again, you have to assume that these viewers wouldn't watch the debate on another channel. And, if they wouldn't watch the debate on another channel, then they're not the Democrat's target audience, and there's 0% chance they'd vote Democratic anyway. Plus, we're talking about this, right? We can argue about how it will effect them in the long run, but they're getting exposure by openly dissing Fox. Hell, it's probably more exposure then they would get for a lousy little primary debate.
I think that people are mistaking Fox's viewership for some small, far-right, insignificant portion of the voting public. In reality, the only way they got to be number one was appealing to a broader audience. I am not arguing their bias, they've made that abundantly clear. I'm also not a Fox apologist or defender. But I do believe that for any Dem or Rep to win, they need to take votes away from the middle. The network with the largest viewership is going to contain large numbers of these voters in the middle.
I agree with your point that people who wouldn't switch to another network to watch the debate are not your target. But I didn't see that switch as an option presented. The debate is either on or off. When presented with that choice, I still think it makes sense to reach out.
Exposure by politically engaged and aware people on a message board doesn't equal exposure to mostly lazy, apathetic voters who you're trying to light a flame under. We shouldn't mistake our debate/discussion for something more broadreaching and meaningful in terms of motivating voters.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
They can help themselves just as much by debating on another network. Debating on Fox only helps Fox.
I dont agree with that. Fox is by far the most watched of the cable news networks, for one. And two, just because you go on Fox's debate doesnt mean you cant then go on a CNN debate or whatever. This isnt an either/or situation, it can be both. They are going to ignore a growing group of disgruntled republicans and moderates by not doing this. In a campaign exposure means a lot, and they are turning down a lot of exposure. It makes them look weak. I hope Kucinich, Biden, etc do this debate, and I hope they kick ass in it, and I hope they expose the Fox news audience to differing views, since the big three candidates are obviously too scared to even try.
Comments
I agree with most of this. But where I disagree, is that I dont think not appearing at the debate, or not going on their shows, or whatever, is going to point out this bias. I think Fox loyalists will look at this as nothing more than the dems being scared of Fox. I think it is much more effective in making Fox's bias evident by actually going on the shows, and this debate, and challenging that bias right to the Fox viewers.
A significant portion of FOX viewers still believe that 9/11 is the reason we went to war with Iraq. They believe that Saddam was behind it! FOX is guilty of informing its viewers false info time, and time again. For that reason alone, is reason enough for any legit candidate for presidency to decline any debate, let alone a DEMOCRATIC debate on a channel known for misinforming the public.
Yeah, I would hate for people to go on the channel and call them on their bullshit. Its much easier to just avoid it and hope it will go away. But that is just being naive.
And no, I don't think it will change the opinions of Fox loyalists - and neither would the debate change their opinion of Democrats, so what's the net benefit for them if they do appear? Also, I don't think the "loyalists" are a majority of Fox's viewers.
I think it's something like 13% of people polled, not Fox viewers just random people, believed that Iraq had ties to 9/11. That is far from being a significant portion of the Fox News veiwership. I'm not a fan of Fox News but let's be realistic here.
Good lord, you make a post like this about a group of people being open minded and then proceed by stereotyping the whole damn group. Not exactly the most open minded statement you just made. And plus, you are wrong. I watch Fox on occasion, because I think it is entertaining. I also read enough to where I dont fall into believing their BS, but I do find it entertaining at times. And I know several others who watch Fox who dont like Bush. Your statement is just stupid, in all honesty. If you werent so narrowminded you could see that.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I dont see how reaching a large # of viewers can possibly hurt. And despite what the previous poster said, there are a ton of moderate and conservatives who are fed up with Bush and the republicans. I definately think if the dems went on and did well they could convince some of these viewers to at least consider them in the next presidential election.
If they are interested in debates they just need to change the channel. I assume if they have access to fox news they probably have the other 24 hour news networks also. The only thing they will be missing is the anti-democrat color commentary.
Fox's audience is definitely that, but it is more than that. It is mainstream American, like it or not.
Fox has the highest cable news channel ratings by far in every time slot. A candidate would have to be a dipshit to forego that kind of exposure.
Well, FOx sucks, but I hardly consider CNN or MSNBC bastions of great news service either.
But, yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree, and I've no problem with that. We'll just have to wait and see if this boycott plays any real part in the election over the next year and a half.
Number one is number one in terms of viewership, therefore exposure. The point remains, to forego that exposure seems like a stupid move when a campaign is all about exposure. Just about every campaign dollar goes toward increasing exposure.
but you're talking about a democratic primary that 90% of fox's viewership will not be participating in anyway. why bother? maybe you'd have a point if this was a general election, but it's not. it's campaigning for the democratic ticket which is decided solely by democrats. the only purpose it might serve is very long term... trying to look reasonable to the fox audience before being pitted against their conservative standard-bearer. but that's a dubious incentive at best.
Because it isnt about Fox. You dont participate in debates to help the Networks, you do it to help yourself.
I still think they are throwing away a chance to reach out to a lot of disgruntled moderates and conservatives. And there is no way this is giving them more exposure than they would get participating in a debate on Fox.
very good point!!!
if you want to reach the moderate audience that may be in limbo for this upcoming election, why wouldnt you do the Fox debate?? it just blows my mind
it just shows that they lack leadership and if the platform for opposition arises they will run
The "opposition" statement maybe, though I disagree - but how does this show a lack of leadership? In fact, it has nothing to do with leadership at all - lack of or otherwise.
then again, how does this help teh candidates? did you read the post she quoted? or do you just not have a logical response to it?
Dont be an asshole. I gave a perfectly logical response, if you cant see that that, its your own shortcoming, not mine. Im sorry I dont agree with you, but my logic is sound.
She said "why would they want to help Fox make more money?". And I responded with "Because it isnt about Fox. You dont participate in debates to help the Networks, you do it to help yourself."
Im not sure what is so illogical about that. If you dont agree fine, but you dont need to be an asshole to me because of your inability to see the logic behind my statement.
I think that people are mistaking Fox's viewership for some small, far-right, insignificant portion of the voting public. In reality, the only way they got to be number one was appealing to a broader audience. I am not arguing their bias, they've made that abundantly clear. I'm also not a Fox apologist or defender. But I do believe that for any Dem or Rep to win, they need to take votes away from the middle. The network with the largest viewership is going to contain large numbers of these voters in the middle.
I agree with your point that people who wouldn't switch to another network to watch the debate are not your target. But I didn't see that switch as an option presented. The debate is either on or off. When presented with that choice, I still think it makes sense to reach out.
Exposure by politically engaged and aware people on a message board doesn't equal exposure to mostly lazy, apathetic voters who you're trying to light a flame under. We shouldn't mistake our debate/discussion for something more broadreaching and meaningful in terms of motivating voters.
I dont agree with that. Fox is by far the most watched of the cable news networks, for one. And two, just because you go on Fox's debate doesnt mean you cant then go on a CNN debate or whatever. This isnt an either/or situation, it can be both. They are going to ignore a growing group of disgruntled republicans and moderates by not doing this. In a campaign exposure means a lot, and they are turning down a lot of exposure. It makes them look weak. I hope Kucinich, Biden, etc do this debate, and I hope they kick ass in it, and I hope they expose the Fox news audience to differing views, since the big three candidates are obviously too scared to even try.
Probably so, but until those other debates exist, that isn't an option. Right now the option is to debate or not.