Fox News Debate Cancelled

Fox News chair biased and alleges Barack Obama is a terrorist just because of name. Nevada debate is called off. Glad Fox's true colors are showing.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/10/debate.canceled/index.html

No votes yet

Is this anything new? Fair and balanced my ass.

Excellent news.

Pink Slip

"It's true that Barack Obama is on the move," Ailes said, deliberately confusing the Illinois senator's name with that of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. "I don't know if it's true President Bush called [Pakistan President Pervez] Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?' "

Which seems to me to be more of slam on the president than on Obama...additionally, the "deliberately confusing" is an OPINION of the writer, perhaps to preview the next sentence which is, IMHO,supposed to be a joke on the President.

Besides, according to this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4354-2005Jan12?language=printer
from the Washington Post, he's not the only one...

"MODERATOR: This person asks, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois was elected with over 80 percent of the vote, and over a million of those voters were also President Bush voters. What did Senator Obama do that Senator Kerry and other Democrats not do?

And do you think the Democrats need to move toward the center to recapture the majority position?

And finally, If a Democrat wins the next presidential election, what are the most difficult problems he or she will face in 2008?

KENNEDY: There you go.

Why don't we just ask Osama bin -- Osama Obama -- Obama what -- since he won by such a big amount. Seriously, Senator Obama is really unique and special."

I don't see this as Fox News calling Obama a terrorist any more than I see Kennedy's statement as doing the same thing.

Personally, I think this just gave Edwards a 'more convenient' reason to pull out of the debate after the intense pressure from MoveOn.org.

...now those who do watch Fox will be deprived of the information and opportunity to see the candidates...

And this from the same person who's mad about Scalia saying no press coverage to a private event.

Please, pink...you often make good points, but can you be consistent? If you think Scalia should have allowed the press to cover his acceptance of an award, shouldn't you also support Edwards participating in a debate sponsored/hosted/whatever by a major tv network?

You know as well as anyone, that Fox would have used this opportunity to steer public opinion away from the Democratic candidates. They are very consistent in doing this. Would the Republican agree to a debate sponsored by Air America?

Pink Slip

Ha ha...I have to give you credit Maggie. You do a good job of framing the conversation. For instance, when you say I don't think Air America is in the same category as Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN...have I missed any? I would actually say I don't think Fox is in the same category as ABC, NBC, CNN, etc. I think this was highlighted when Fox erroneously "reported" that Obama attended a Madrassa. (of course there are countless other instances) Fox is not news, it's opinion. It says it all in it's tag line "fair and balanced". News is not "fair and balanced". It's just news. Opinions are "fair and balanced".

As far as your "assumptions" remark, I can just use recent history as proof:

For an example of how disrespectful and counterproductive such Fox News-sponsored Democratic debates are, consider the September 9, 2003 Democratic debate in Baltimore, Maryland, hosted by Fox News in partnership with the Congressional Black Caucus. Fox News graphics, as well as a banner over the stage, titled the event as the "Democrat Candidate Presidential Debate," a misconstruction of "Democrat" used as an an epithet Fox News then summarized the debate with a story titled, "Democratic Candidates Offer Grim View of America," continuing with such jabs as, "The depiction of the president as the root of all evil began at the top of Tuesday night's debate

Pink Slip

"It's true that Barack Obama is on the move," Ailes said, deliberately confusing the Illinois senator's name with that of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. "I don't know if it's true President Bush called [Pakistan President Pervez] Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?' "

Sure, I guess you can take that as a stab toward the President, yet, he is still referring Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden. What part of that did you not see?

I never heard Kennedy's comment, however, if he did say that then I'd still be criticizing.

Yes, public people are fair game for jokes. But comparing Obama to a terrorist who recently killed 3,000 people, a highly emotional topic, is hardly a tasteful joke. I thought you had more class than that Maggie.

"I've not offered an OPINION of the joke at all"..."All I did was point out that my interpretation of the joke was that it wasn't criticizing Obama as much as it criticized the president."

That's funny, I'm pretty sure interpretations are usually an opinion, eh?

I am addressing the point, the point being Roger Ailes compared Obama to Osama. If you want to skirt that topic, sure, Edwards may have used this to not attend the debate. I could care less because I think he's a weak candidate with no chance of winning, and he's not moderate enough for me to vote for him. At the moment, without researching all of the candidates fully yet, there are two candidates (1 Republican and 1 Democratic) that I would consider voting for. Edwards is weak.

Oh, and talk about fringe. There's a possibility that hypocrite Newt Gingrich might run.

"...additionally, the "deliberately confusing" is an OPINION of the writer..."

In that case Maggie, the writer who you claim was stating an opinion was clearly interpreting, wouldn't you say? The writer didn't say, oh no, that was a bad comment. He was explaining what Roger was trying to do. So which is it?

If it was going to be Democrats only, which was my understanding it would have been the perfect opportunity to reach out to a sector of the American public that does watch Fox.

Even if worst case scenario the questions were skewed, anyone who has watched any of the debates knows the chances of really having the question asked answered is close to a miracle event anyway.

Yes, I know the whole anti-Fox thing but the reality is access to the public to get out your ideas should be what's most important. There are many people here in town that state they don't like the Blade even before the lockout and of course much stronger feelings for many after the lockout. Yet local and state candidates paid for advertising on Buckeye-Cablesystem and all but two met with the Blade for the endorsement screenings. That was hardly mentioned, yet it's a reality. So to me it seems a bit hypocritical.

We don't remember days only moments...

is a ridiculous one for us to be discussing. Watch the 'news' or talk shows on any of these channels and you can quickly draw your own conclusions. It is truly as plain as the nose on your face. If you are willing to see it.

Berating someone for not 'having an identical opinion as your own' is just a third ground playground tactic and anyone engaging in it should be ashamed.

If we want to make any progress in America - we have to stop talking to and responding to people who don't have any intention of doing anything but fighting. The people who will make a difference are not found in the extremes of either party. Our next heroes will come from the middle. And they won't spend any time in the kind of talk like this.

Fox COULD have, and I'll send an email in suggesting they do host a debate that holds the Democratic candidates and one for the Republican candidates. Later on they can look at a direct to direct between the parties.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

let's say that Ailes was really trying to call Obama a terrorist. So, they cancel the candidate forum as part of the 'payback'

I just don't want to see any of these same people showing up on Fox shows, or anything else.

Edwards appeared in the last democrat presidential debate that Fox hosted and he's been on Fox at least 33 times ... if this is so bad, I expect him to never go on Fox again.

We'll just see if he's standing by principles or playing politics...His actions will tell us what we need to know on this issue.

I heard the audio on newsradio yesterday. I suggest if you can find the audio listen to it.

Here is a copy of Ailes comments for those who want context of that and the other jokes he made. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/rtndf_1st_amendment_awards_trans...

It's notable that one of the jokes came at the expense of one of CNN's top ratings getters Larry King and the article that started this thread came from surprisingly CNN.

MikeyA

MikeyA

assumptions you make!

I don't think Air America is in the same category as Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN...have I missed any?

So, you've attacked the host instead of the comment itself? I still think Edwards was just looking for a more convenient excuse to get out of the debate..my opinion - no right or wrong on it...but it sure will help his standing with the far left of his party who see conspiracy in everything on the right...

"I don't know if it's true President Bush called [Pakistan President Pervez] Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?' "

Gee, Maggie, who was Ailes referring to then? Whose "this guy"? I think its' a fair opinion and assumption that Ailes was deliberately referring to Obama as Osama. Quit coming to the defense of your Republican cronies.

when Kennedy did the same thing?

yes - I see your point. But you interpret this as Ailes calling Obama a terrorist. I intrepet this as Ailes making fun of Bush by taking advantage of the similarity of names.

Public people are fair game for jokes...and in this instance, Obama wasn't the brunt of the joke - Bush was. I'd have thought that people like you would be defending the criticism of the president.

...OPINIONS are neither fair nor balanced. They are, afterall, a conclusion or perspective and have no right or wrong - nor fairness nor balance.

As for your example - many people make the mistake with the description of 'democrat' vs. 'democratic' in reference to the party...Which is not me defending any mistake in doing so - but you see conspiracy in the error without any tolerance for a simple mistake.

As for other stations - the examples of them being blatantly anti anything Republican...well...I've got better things to do than list them all.

So - please see me question above if you'd like to continue this discussion.

I didn't compare him. I have not even defended the joke. In fact, I've not offered an OPINION of the joke at all...so please make sure you read correctly before saying I should have more class!

All I did was point out that my interpretation of the joke was that it wasn't criticizing Obama as much as it criticized the president. I then offered an example of someone else calling Obama/Osama ... in a public speech.

And no one - yet - has even addressed the point...which is that Edwards used this as an excuse not to attend the debate. Personally, I'd like to know Obama's reaction to this..

...always opinions. In this case, I explained what I thought the quote meant and what the author was trying to do.

My interpretation is that the author wasn't comparing Osama/Obama as much as he was using a play on words to criticize the president.

An opinion is what I thought of the quote - whether or not I think this 'joke' is bad, good, tasteful, tacky, funny, sad...shall I go on?

...my reference to the OPINION was the to the word 'deliberately' and I'm sorry that was not clear. I see how it could be taken other than I meant it.

I think that, had I been the reporter, I would have relayed it differently. perhaps something along of the lines of:

"It's true that Barack Obama is on the move," Ailes said, trying to take advantage of the similarity between the Illinois senator's name and that of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden as a set up for a joke.

"I don't know if it's true President Bush called [Pakistan President Pervez] Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?' "

Would the Republicans agree to a debate sponsored by Air America?

Well, I guess they will get their chance:

Air America's Invitation

The president of liberal Air America Radio this morning sent a letter to the chairmen of four state Republican parties, offering to host and broadcast the state parties' upcoming presidential debates.

Agreeing to the debate

Pink Slip

"I don't think Air America is in the same category as Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN...have I missed any?"

I don't think Fox is in the same category as ABC, NBC, CBS. Could Fox be any more blatant they are a mouthpiece for the RR? Ridiculous Right?

I didn't try to defend anyone. I said that Ailes was making a joke at the expense of the president - making fun of Bush implying that Bush didn't know the difference between Obama and Osama...

How is that defending anyone?

I'll give you that, I don't think the 'Democrat' and 'Democratic' means much of anything. Though, I wonder, did Fox ever spend much time APOLOGIZING for spreading untruth's about Obama going to a madrassa?

No, I understand, and I'm not trying to be an ass, but even your re-phrased sentence is implying something that may or may not have been true. How do you truly know he was setting it up as a joke? I guess there is an element of assumption in both your version of the sentence and what was really written. So, I'd argue that there is truly no way of writing a completely unbiased report or sentence, without one side or the other reading into it differently. Perhaps thats why I view Fox as an outrageously loud mouthpiece for the far right, while I view CNN as a more balanced, subtle mouthpiece for the left.

...that the major three (ABC,CBS,NBC) are a blatant mouthpiece for the LL - liberal left...(note that I could have said "looney" left...)

But I must say that this raises an interesting topic and I'd like to have a 'respectful' discussion of this...

Those on the left see Fox as being blatantly right - and they see the other major networks as being more fair.

Those on the right see the other major networks as being blatantly left.

Is it possible that those on both sides have lost their ability to accurately judge a true/unbiased/fair news report? Have our news media lost the ability to give us such?

...and understood...perhaps the only unbiased way to report it would have been to give the quoted portions - minus the description added by the reporter - and leave it at that.

But then the two sentences don't make sense to me, if it isn't intended as a joke...and I'll admit that I may be missing something there...

I have heard the audio and the joke was clearly being made at the President's expense not at Obama's. Anyone else who heard the audio would not be able to mistake this.

That's the problem with spindoctors. They use quotes that don't show the comedic emphasis used to spin a quote their way. I could say take my wife please and it sounds as if I'm actually offering my wife to someone.

I think Lisa hit the nail on the head with her comment.

I find it funny that it was implied that Fox was not in the same league as CBS. Because Fox has never had to fire a popular anchor because they knowingly put false knowledge of a candidate on Primetime during an election.

MikeyA

MikeyA

A botched joke about Bush? Where have I heard that before?

Pink Slip

...the people at the event obviously thought it was a joke because they were laughing...

I dunno...maybe they'd be a better judge, having been there, than you?

I was just making light of the fact that Kerry botched a Bush joke, and now Ailes botches a Bush joke. It's interesting to see how people are interpreting both.

Pink Slip

Pink listen to the audio of it. The joke was not botched. It was a joke implying that the President wasn't intelligent enough to tell the difference between Bin Laden and Obama.

Kerry's joke was botched by him and the media jumped on it's double meaning.

Ailes joke was not botched but purposely misconstrued to reflect something else by being taken out of context and not showing the comedic emphasis. There is a difference.

MikeyA

MikeyA

I did listen to the audio. It sounded pretty much the same as the way it printed. If Ailes was just joking about Bush, wouldn't he have explained that after it was misinterpreted? Wouldn't he have helped clear everything up by doing this?

Pink Slip

I listened to the audio and read the print version as well. It was without his vocal emphasis which clearly made it seem a joke on the President.

How did you miss this?

You compared this to Kerry. Now I saw that clip as well. Kerry did not change his emphasis and there could have reasonably been a double meaning. Add to that what Kerry said when he testified before congress and it's easy to see how one could misconstrue his comments. However I acknowledged at that time he could have meant something else but he definitely misspoke and people would judge as they will.

In this case there was no misspeak. Ailes delivered the joke with briliant timing because as you can tell from the laughter in it everyone thought it was funny. If it were an attack it wouldn't have recieved laughter and would have been treated as a serious comment by the audience in attendance. Besides the context of the rest of the dinner was left out as jokes had been used all night.

MikeyA

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.