Obama, Clinton to skip Fox-backed debate

245

Comments

  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    dg1979us wrote:
    Thats ridiculous. Fox is the most watched news channel on TV. I understand how we all look at Fox and I understand all the negative points of Fox, and agree with most of them. But, to say the most watched news channel has no credibility is ridiculous. Maybe they shouldnt have credibility, but they do, because a lot of conservative viewers find them credible. And really, thats all that matters.
    How would you feel about Eddie Vedder appearing on American Idol - the most watched music program of the day?
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    tybird wrote:
    Thank you....we are seeing the same problems being highlighted by this situation.

    A true leader should be able to engage their opponents supports. Listen to them and attempt to embrace their beliefs and meet them half way. We no longer have that type of leadership in this country. Wether democrat or Republican they only cater to their base and constantly alienate the otherside. This is probably the main reason why I can't support a Republican or a Democrat, with the exception of Ron Paul. They really don't care about the country as a whole only about their party and it's supporters.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    dg1979us wrote:
    Oh Im sure that is the case. 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.
    But this is a challenge to Fox's credibility. Appearing on it would have propped the station up as being far more legitimate than it deserves.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    RainDog wrote:
    How would you feel about Eddie Vedder appearing on American Idol - the most watched music program of the day?

    Of course I wouldnt like, but an entertainment show and a channel that does have a lot of influence on how people in our country view the news is a completely invalid comparison. We can all shit on Fox as much as we want. And I agree, they deserve to be shit on. But because we decide to criticise them, doesnt mean that a significant portion of the country dont look to Fox to help them form an opinion. If you simply want to dismiss Fox because you dont find them credible, then you more or less let their lack of credibility go unchallenged, and the many viewers are going to be influenced by a biased news source whose opponents wont bother to challenge them.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    RainDog wrote:
    But this is a challenge to Fox's credibility. Appearing on it would have propped the station up as being far more legitimate than it deserves.

    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.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    dg1979us wrote:
    Oh Im sure that is the case. 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.


    I don't think it lets their credibility go unchallenged. I think Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are missing a huge opportunity to reach out to voters who would normaly not support them. I'm going to assume that most republicans watch Fox News simply because the news is presented in a slant that is favorable to them. This could be a golden opportunity to reach out to those Republicans who are dissappointed with the current republican party and it's leadership. Instead though they choose to do the samething they blame this administration of doing and that is surrounding themselves with supporters so that they do not have to face any criticism.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    mammasan wrote:
    A true leader should be able to engage their opponents supports. Listen to them and attempt to embrace their beliefs and meet them half way. We no longer have that type of leadership in this country. Wether democrat or Republican they only cater to their base and constantly alienate the otherside. This is probably the main reason why I can't support a Republican or a Democrat, with the exception of Ron Paul. They really don't care about the country as a whole only about their party and it's supporters.
    Very true and well said.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    mammasan wrote:
    I don't think it lets their credibility go unchallenged. I think Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are missing a huge opportunity to reach out to voters who would normaly not support them. I'm going to assume that most republicans watch Fox News simply because the news is presented in a slant that is favorable to them. This could be a golden opportunity to reach out to those Republicans who are dissappointed with the current republican party and it's leadership. Instead though they choose to do the samething they blame this administration of doing and that is surrounding themselves with supporters so that they do not have to face any criticism.



    Well that is actually the biggest issue I think. Fox's credibility IMO isnt going to change no matter if they do it or not. 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.
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    RainDog wrote:
    Yeah, because Stewart and Colbert are notorious for their Democratic ass kissing. :rolleyes:

    Or, to put it another way, ripping on the people in power doesn't automatically translate into unwavering support for the opposition. You eat what you're fed, and I don't fault Stewart or Colbert for dining heavily on the all you can eat buffet that the Bush administration provided.
    They probably want a Demo in the White House because they are running out of Republican jokes. ;)
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    dg1979us wrote:
    Of course I wouldnt like, but an entertainment show and a channel that does have a lot of influence on how people in our country view the news is a completely invalid comparison. We can all shit on Fox as much as we want. And I agree, they deserve to be shit on. But because we decide to criticise them, doesnt mean that a significant portion of the country dont look to Fox to help them form an opinion. If you simply want to dismiss Fox because you dont find them credible, then you more or less let their lack of credibility go unchallenged, and the many viewers are going to be influenced by a biased news source whose opponents wont bother to challenge them.
    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.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    tybird wrote:
    They probably want a Demo in the White House because they are running out of Republican jokes. ;)
    :D 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.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    RainDog wrote:
    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.
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    dg1979us wrote:
    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.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    Jeanwah wrote:
    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.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    dg1979us wrote:
    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.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    Jeanwah wrote:
    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
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    dg1979us wrote:
    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.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    dg1979us wrote:
    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."
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    Jeanwah wrote:
    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.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    RainDog wrote:
    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.

Categories