Just what was it that Ailes said above that Reid took issue with?

By making a joke about the similarities between Osama's and Obama's names. Not quite on the level of the Danish cartoons, but enough to get you ostracized by John Edwards & the Nevada Dems.

Faux News target audience is made up of bitter aging knuckledraggers who still think Saddam had something to do with 9-11 and that some of the hijackers that day were Iraqi.

Fox News, catering to the dumbest part of America since 1996!

From the Las Vegas Review Journal...

"By Friday, the Nevada Democratic Party caved in to the lunatic fringe and beganseeking a more "appropriate" television partner.

Comedy Central, perhaps?"

The joke was that PRES BUSH was confusing the names... as well as a reminder that Osama is still out there too. As Kevin said... how dare they make a joke at the president's expense!

And Mast... you're doing it again. We already *know* what the left thinks of that network called Faux News that they never actually watch but hate so badly. And you know what? Those better aging knuckledraggers vote. And YOUR PARTY just passed up an opportunity to speak to voters.

Is remaining pure of the taint of fox-ness really that important?

I guess it is a botched joke only when conservatives say one (Ailes/Coulter).

Payback is a bitch!

Oh, in the other (Maya preists) thread I mentioned a book I just read. It's a fantasy by the fabulous author Jane Lindskold called _Brother to Dragons, Companion to Owls_ that is based on the concept of "magical thinking" which it is explained is the habit of people of attibuting human attributes to inanimate things. The example to explain it... would you wear the shirt of someone you hated, even if it had been washed? It's just a shirt. But most people would not want to even touch something with that association.

It seems to me that the issue isn't Fox News, it's magical thinking.

It's just a television station folks. It doesn't have cooties.

As if any Faux Noise watching drooler would ever vote for a Democrat in the first place. Yea, right.

Faux Noise is for the hardcore masses of bitter, thick skulled nuts who think Dennis Miller is actually funny, and that evolution is 'just a theory' and that Toby Keith is a 'musician'.

Fox News is now guaranteed to make liberals scatter like cockroaches when someone turns on the light. I believe El Rushbo would call that "shining the light of truth." Heh heh.

Hey Mast -- better check your email, I hear those marching orders from MoveOn.org are starting to pile up now ...

Ailes - speaking about journalists and journalism. What a joke:

"Ailes entered politics working for Richard Nixon, showing the campaign how to present paid political events so that they would appear to be news, in order to manipulate public opinion about the candidate. A false warm-and-fuzzy Nixon was sold by Ailes like a "car or a can of peas," as Joe McGinniss put it in "The Selling of the President, 1968." Ailes's father was an Ohio factory foreman who complained of being talked down to by corporate executives at the plant. Ailes shared with Nixon contempt for "elites" and a knack for speaking to the racial prejudices of certain lower-class white men. Discussing the addition of a panelist to a staged Nixon "Man in the Arena" forum, Ailes said: "You know what I'd like? As long as we've got this extra spot open. A good, mean Wallace-ite cab driver. Wouldn't that be great? Some guy to sit there and say, 'Awright, mac, what about these niggers?'"

...

Under the direction of Ailes and the late Lee Atwater, the Bush campaign questioned Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis's patriotism, tarred him as an unfit commander in chief, and portrayed him as soft on crime. Though he claimed he had nothing to do with it, Ailes was burned in a controversy over an advertisement produced by an independent pro-Bush group that featured convicted African American murderer Willie Horton, who had committed rape after escaping from a weekend furlough program while Dukakis was governor of Massachusetts. According to Time magazine, Ailes said at the time, "The only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife or without one." Atwater said that Ailes had "two settings: attack and destroy," yet Ailes had the temerity to call Dukakis "the dirtiest campaigner in America."

Ailes is a major-league jackass, and notion that Fox News is capable of staging an honest and fair debate is a major-league joke.

Democrats, once again, are displaying their political acumen.

First, they nominate Gore. Then Jacques Francois Kerry.

In fear...they are all bailing on a Fox News debate.

Did it ever occur to one of the idiots in the DNC that maybe Fox was the place to go if they wanted to pick up a larger audience of Independents or GOP'ers ready to switch in the 2008 year election.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

It works for me. Yo Democrats, stay on your own HOME TURF. Don't reach out to other voters to join you.

Yo, Jerks. Just live and die with CBS. (or any other Completely Bias Station.) Keep outta my arena.

You just MAKE MY DAY!

"As if any Faux Noise watching drooler would ever vote for a Democrat in the first place. Yea, right.

Faux Noise is for the hardcore masses of bitter, thick skulled nuts who think (...) that Toby Keith is a 'musician'."

Ah, Democrats and Liberals... always on the side of the common man.

Most of us have known for a long time that in fact, Dems and Liberals despise the common man, despise the working stiff, the poor uncultured child of America. It ooozes from your pores like the stink of too much garlic. If you're liberal and want a cutting insult just haul out the trailor park. Sneer at the people beneath you.

But smile my friend, smile and explain how it's the little guy that Dems serve. The poor they care about and want to help. The working mother just trying to get by. Smile and speak and say how much you care, really care.

It's worked before.

I will work again.

[url=][/url]

When it's all said and done, none of this makes any Democrat look bad it makes Faux News look like the clowns that they are. Faux never had any intention on presenting this debate in anything resembling a fair and balanced manner. I could only imagine the cute little titles they would have put on the screen making fun of Edwards hair or Obama's parking tickets.

Fox exists for one reason, to tow the party line. Even Ropert Murdoch himself admitted at the Davos conference that he used his network to push Bush's agenda. Real balance I guess.

How anyone can sit there and claim that they are somehow 'fair and balanced' is beyond me. Then again, their audience is so stupid they still think there are WMD's in Iraq.

People *know* if questions are unfair.

This idea that Fox could screw the debate somehow is a willful fantasy. You're afraid of what they could do when in fact they couldn't do a thing even if they wanted to. "Cute little titles?" That would be obvious and would never happen.

The candidates don't want to talk to YOU Mast. They are happy of an excuse not to stand beside each other so that YOU can compare them and their answers and decide who to vote for.

The the danger isn't from Fox. It's from opening their mouths in public.

And consider this while you praise your masters.

Elections are not won on doctrinal purity. They are won on the swing vote.

The only "swing" votes you'll find among Fox News viewers is the the swinging that neandrethal conservatives do from trees....

Or is it the way they swing their knuckle-dragging arms as they walk?

Elections are not won on doctrinal purity. They are won on the swing vote.Elections are not won on doctrinal purity. They are won on the swing vote.

Which is why the GOP got hammered last election, thanks to the swing voter.

When it's all said and done, none of this makes any Democrat look bad it makes Faux News look like the clowns that they are. Faux never had any intention on presenting this debate in anything resembling a fair and balanced manner.

Based on what? They hosted one in 2004 if memory serves and were quite fair. Feel free to point to a reason to believe that they'd be unfair --- outside of them not being idealogically pure enough for you.

I could only imagine the cute little titles they would have put on the screen making fun of Edwards hair or Obama's parking tickets.

Which would give the Dems something to campaign against. Republicans can refuse to debate on CBS after they forged memos against Bush, but that would be silly.

Fox exists for one reason, to tow the party line. Even Ropert Murdoch himself admitted at the Davos conference that he used his network to push Bush's agenda. Real balance I guess.

Feel free to post a link to that because it sounds like you made it up.

How anyone can sit there and claim that they are somehow 'fair and balanced' is beyond me. Then again, their audience is so stupid they still think there are WMD's in Iraq.

The usual leftist "The people are too sutpid to vote for us" mentality that has worked wonders for you.
-=Mike
...notice that when the GOP lost, no whining occurred about how dumb the voters were or about voting irregularities (which, undoubtedly, existed as they do in EVERY election in history)?

Getting past all the childish BS of Lee and Mast.. Bottom line?.. The DNC broke it down cuz they can't Hang!.. They got their orders from Moveon. Next week they'll get to learn how to sit, and roll over!

Perhaps one of these brain surgeons on the left can explain to us how HOSTING an event is biased.

Of course you can't. Your inconveneint truth is that you white flag wavers are to scared to be in a venue where they are asking real questions not throwing soft ball powder puffs.

Nothing is so amusing as a lefty that has his underbelly exposed... a la Gore and his "carbon credits", Edwards worring about the "little guy" from one of his two mansions, and my continuing to give favorite, all the global warming crap that has been cancelled because of snow, tornado's, frigid weather and windchill.

Faux News target audience is made up of bitter aging knuckledraggers who still think Saddam had something to do with 9-11 and that some of the hijackers that day were Iraqi.

Fox News, catering to the dumbest part of America since 1996! Posted by: Mast at March 10, 2007 03:39 PM

Masty me thinks you should get a wider brush to paint with. Your description fits all of cable news.

Seldom mentioned, however, is the fact that cable news is equally geriatric. Indeed, Fox News Channel and CNN are two of only three leading basic networks (the other being the Hallmark Channel) whose median viewer age is over 60. Headline News rings in next at 59.9, and MSNBC is still on the rickety side at 57.

The only "swing" votes you'll find among Fox News viewers is the the swinging that neandrethal conservatives do from trees

How can that be when so many of the left side of political spectrum watch Fox News?

You are all admitting it because how else are your opinions derived?

Certainly you are not insinuating that you are forming opinions based on what "you heard", right?

Say it isn't so........

"Perhaps one of these brain surgeons on the left can explain to us how HOSTING an event is biased."

Always happy to help out another uniformed conservative idiot.

Faux News "hosting the event" meant that the panel asking the question was mostly Faux News "journalists". In addition Faux News had some very un-democratic requirements - for example they wanted exclusive rights to the clips on the web or some such nonsense. In other words, Faux News wanted to control the content and the distribution.

You're welcome, asshole.

Which is why the GOP got hammered last election, thanks to the swing voter

And now those swing voters are saying "what the eff", I voted for these clowns. Holy crap!!!

Same thing happened in 1992.

Fixed again in 1994.

Repeat in 2008.

Oh, and good luck with that Iraq plan Number # 17.

Ailes is a major-league jackass, and notion that Fox News is capable of staging an honest and fair debate is a major-league joke.
Posted by: Lee at March 10, 2007 03:57 PM

For the sake of argument Lee let's assume that tripe is fact. What was unfair and dishonest about the 2003 debate hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and Fox News Channel?

Biased in 2004 was it Leeee leee? One Fox guy..(Hume) on the panel..and he only asked Dean where he got his button. Talk about BS Idiots..

"How can that be when so many of the left side of political spectrum watch Fox News?"

Good question, jumpingjoe - but how many is "so many"?

And if you quote a number or percentage of viewers, and that number was supplied by Faux News, it doesn't count. They can't be relied on for the truth, so show us a poll or survey done by someone other that Faux News -- if there is any in fact backup you can provide to your claim that "so many" on the left watch Faux News.

Oh!..I get it now!.. it's "Cut and Run" time!..they're in training!..LOL..(With Edwards in the lead)

Faux News "hosting the event" meant that the panel asking the question was mostly Faux News "journalists".

Wow, I never thought about that, they may ask questions about the GWOT...or something. Or.... "gasp"....maybe a question about Iraq.

Can't have any of that.

Nope.....

if there is any in fact backup you can provide to your claim that "so many" on the left watch Faux News".

Lee, thank you opining with your pithy comment. (Some O'Reilly speak for you)

I naturally assume that 100% of the left wing persuasion that are opining about the bias of Fox News here in the comment section are doing so from first hand experience. You know....from actually spending time in front of the T.V. watching it to form their opinions.

After all, real intellectuals investigate for themselves, or is that just a leap of faith on my part?

Faux News "hosting the event" meant that the panel asking the question was mostly Faux News "journalists". In addition Faux News had some very un-democratic requirements - for example they wanted exclusive rights to the clips on the web or some such nonsense. In other words, Faux News wanted to control the content and the distribution.

You're welcome, asshole.
Posted by: Lee at March 10, 2007 05:00 PM

Jeebus Lee, I just gave you credit for being smart in another thread on this subject, then you come up with this unadulterated garbage.

Who was on the panel asking question in 2003 Lee? Go ahead, take a peek.

Who were the panelists for this one Lee?

Why wouldn't they want to control the content Lee, they would own the copyright. Moreover it would have been broadcast on terrestrial stations and available, at it was in 2003, for the entire country. Maintaining any control over clips presented as web content is bad? How so?

And BTW just what the hell is "or some such nonsense?"

A self fisking?

"Talk about BS Idiots.."

I was talking about the upcoming Nevada debate - not some debate back in 2003 or 2004. Did Faux News stack the panel and restrict distribution in that debate?

Nope.

Overview: This was the second debate in less than a week and the second (after the May debate in South Carolina) in which all nine participated.

Candidates: Carol Moseley Braun, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Joseph Lieberman, Al Sharpton.

Moderator: Brit Hume.

Panel:
Farai Chideya - former television correspondent, author and now editor of thebeehive.org.
Ed Gordon - currently contributing editor of Savoy magazine; has worked with NBC and Black Entertainment Television.
Juan Williams - author, senior correspondent of National Public Radio, analyst for Fox News and host of the syndicated program "America's Black Forum."

Audience: 2,000 invited guests (and a handful who had to be disinvited).

Format: Five rounds of questions posed by the three-person panel--the first two rounds on the war on terror, Iraq and foreign policy, the next two rounds on domestic issues, and the final round "dealer's choice." Candidates had one minute to respond to questions. Forty-five second closing statements.

Broadcast: Fox News Channel, C-SPAN.

And I'd suggest getting some band-aids on those knuckles before they get infected....

It's my understanding that with the Nevada debate Faux had refused permission for C-Span to carry it live. How un-democratic of them"

Huh? That's the reason Democrats refuse to be moderated by Fox News? Because C-Span won't carry it?

Wow....pussies

"Huh? That's the reason Democrats refuse to be moderated by Fox News? Because C-Span won't carry it?"

Not the only reason, JumpinJoe - is your neanderthal memory so frail that you have forgotten the other reasons cited above?

Maybe your 30 second memory capacity is a result of a fever from that knuckle infection...

Not the only reason, JumpinJoe - is your neanderthal memory so frail that you have forgotten the other reasons cited above"

Huh...cited above?

Please point these out because I don't see them?

Come on...purdy please.....my frail memory eludes me.

Here ya go MikeSC, Murdoch admitting his joke of a network tried to push the Bush side of the picture. You probably could have found it yourself, had you used the google and typed in Murdoch and Davos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF9HpuZm6

It's your understanding LEE? Got a link to "understanding?"

OK, fine. Thats a debatable subject for another day.

Surely you can see looking at history, i.e. a ref to the 2003 debate, would be appropriate in assessing what any future Fox hosted debate may look like...right?

So Lee is it your contention Juan Williams is someone who toes the Rep Party line? In point of fact he's very left leaning and one who the left would never point to when claiming Fox ISN't fair and balenced.

Ed Gordon the same? Not sure about Farai Chideya. but why would it matter? He would be out numbered 2 to 1 even if he was a Pat Buchanan type.

Banning C-Span? So! At this point and so far removed from the time this event would have occurred who would broadcast it is far from being settled.

Everything is negotiable in these things. You do remember silly stuff about how many pencils or type of ball pens used in previous debates. Right?

Lee, lets find a "common ground?" Okay?

Would this be acceptable?

Hosted by MSNBC
Moderator: Keith Olberman

Panelists: James Carville, Atrios, Chris Matthews.
Sponsor: Kool-Aid (Kiwi-Strawberry flavor)

BTW Lee, here is the full transcript of that 2003 debate.

First note the previous link missed one of the panelists. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) was also included.

Now assuming ALL those panelists were knuckle dragin' rePUGlicans (which we know is far from true) just what was unfair, unbalanced or otherwise slanted to paint the democratic candidates in a bad light to further their "neo-can agenda?"

I wait....

I didn't think it was possible, but someone more idiotic than Lee posts here. Welcome Mast. Mast, if we on the right are convinced that Saddam planned 911 and there were Iraqis on the hijack teams. What was Bill Clinton's reason for signing the 1998 Iraqi Freedom Act, which called for the removal from power of Saddam Hussein? If you and the lying loser Lee want to keep informed about current events, watch Fox news, like and ever growing number of intelligent People, worldwide. If you just want to hear things that agree with your perspective, continue doing what you do. If you do, you will always be welcome at KOS

The scramble to justify the idiocy just goes on doesn't it.

Suppose, for sake of argument, hostile hosts trying to make the Dems look bad. Your candidates can't turn the spotlight back on the panel if they need to? I've seen politicians do it and it tends to gain them some major points with viewers when they do. Where's the down-side to this, fellas? The debate is Dems against Dems so it's not like Republicans can be favored.

But I point this stuff out and it's all "No one watches Faux News but (string of name calling), etc." Or some other slander of journalists.

And yeah, Lee, NO ONE on the left can so much as walk past a television set with FOX news on without having the vapours... so where do they get their information? Where is the fairness? They heard people cry about O'Reilly but they don't watch the News segments or have any sort of a clue. People who DO watch the news segments know that it is little different from any other news out there. The difference is in commentary. Yet you, and others here, feel free to slander journalists you never ever watch, stating as though it were a fact that they operate in utter bad faith and would absolutely operate in bad faith while hosting an political debate among Democratic canidates.

Better yet, they'd operate in bad faith and *no one would notice*. Because people are stupid. All those people the Dems claim to care about are idiots and too dumb to function.

Dems want to get everyone out to vote but they don't trust them so they want them to vote in ignorance.

If you and the lying loser Lee want to keep informed about current events, watch Fox news...

LOL! You're a comedy genius! Though not so good at reality:

The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts;...

...like and ever growing number of intelligent People

Oops! Wrong again! You really should get that fibber of yours checked out by a doctor.

From Brain's Link...

About us......

The American Prospect was founded in 1990 as an authoritative magazine of liberal ideas, committed to a just society, an enriched democracy, and effective liberal politics. "

Hardly a "fair and balanced" link, dontcha think?

Why use a partisan link to prove that the other guy is too partisan?

Very partisan of you.....indeed.

Synova:

The scramble to justify the idiocy just goes on doesn't it.

And of course the key phrase is: "*no one would notice*"

Lee and his fellow travelers are all having an acute myo cardial infarction over a debate that won't happen, that is between democrats because they fear the panelists (who we have zero idea of their identity at this point) will pull the wool over the eyes of not only the candidates in the debate but the public at large.

In other words in their concerted effort to discredit the republicans and Fox News they have taken the position of believing their own democratic constituents are dumber than a box of wrenches and would never, NEVER catch any bias or trickery pulled on they by Fox or the debate panelists.

It's astounding. It truely is.

In other words in their concerted effort to discredit the republicans and Fox News they have taken the position of believing their own democratic constituents are dumber than a box of wrenches and would never, NEVER catch any bias or trickery pulled on they by Fox or the debate panelists"

I was waiting for Lee or one of his compatriots to defend their reasons for Democrats boycotting this debate. But you hit the nail on the head.

They truly must believe those that vote for them are that stupid as to think there will be trickery and Democrats will have questions they never intended to answer and no one will notice.

I swear, if Republican's in mass boycotted a network for the same reasons the lefties are defending Democrats right now, I would question their intelligence.

Not these guys....MoveOn gave the marching orders on this one and the goose-step parade continues on.

I've recently discovered the Democrats plan for the '08 Presidential debates - 'cut and run'. Unfortunately (for the Democrats), they've have do reveal their strategy early for the Nevada debates.

Is that the Democrats answer for everything ? (cut-and-run)

..they've had to...

Honestly, we all know that Fox News (sic) is a Republican propaganda organization masquerading as a news organization. They're not fooling anyone. Why should the democrats go along with the charade?

From Fox, we "learned" that Foley is a democrat and that Libby was found not guilty. Fox News is utterly ridiculous!

Faux News "hosting the event" meant that the panel asking the question was mostly Faux News "journalists". In addition Faux News had some very un-democratic requirements - for example they wanted exclusive rights to the clips on the web or some such nonsense. In other words, Faux News wanted to control the content and the distribution.

You're welcome, asshole.
Posted by: Lee at March 10, 2007 05:00 PM

Something about the horse you rode in on, but I digress...

OF COURSE their panel is going to ask the questions ... in no way different than a panel from CBS or The League of Women Voters or the Atlanta Press Club ... or how about that MSNBC ran the South Carolina Democratic Party Presidential Primary Debate in Greenville January 29, 2004.... were you incensed/worried over their bias? Or does your incense run one way? PS, that was a rhetorical question (that means no answer necessary, munchkin).

OF COURSE they own the content, just like NBC owns theirs, ABC and SeeBS owns theirs... ever noticed the little copyright disclaimers?? How about the NFL or NBA or MLB? Golly, gosh gee whiz, you don't suppose that's why they call it "exclusive rights" do you?

Oh wait, I forgot! It's liberal think: what's yours is yours and what's everyone elses is yours too... for the "commmon good" dontcha know.

You are such a sad little munchkin unable to see the fallacy of the nonsense you spew.

I doubt you've ever watched ANY Fox News, and I particularly doubt you know anything about Brit Hume, the would be host of the cowards debate.

Do a little LEGITIMATE research (not the kind that serves your favorite Koolaid) then come back and talk with the grown-ups

Are you Republicans honestly unaware that Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes are very, very, very pro-Republican and using their property (Fox News) to push their political agenda? And do you honestly NOT SEE why the Democrats might chose not to help Fox?

Are you Republicans honestly unaware that Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes are very, very, very pro-Republican and using their property (Fox News) to push their political agenda? And do you honestly NOT SEE why the Democrats might chose not to help Fox?

And this causes Democrats to pee their pants and run why ? Because Fox doesn't toe the Democrat party line ?

You're also aware the Ted Turner, the man who started CNN, is very, very, very pro-Democrat ? Yet, I haven't seen any Republicans fleeing from CNN.

And this causes Democrats to pee their pants and run why ? Because Fox doesn't toe the Democrat party line ?

Ok. So the answer is "yes" you DO realize that Fox is not "fair and balanced", but an organization that actively pushes the Republican agenda.

Which is why, I think the Democrats wisely decided not to work with them on their debates. We also know that the Bush administration rushes to Fox when they want to deliver their messages or be interviewed by people who throw softball questions. I don't blame them for this----it simply makes sense.

It's cooties, _Mike_.

Republicans aren't afraid that they will get Turner cooties from CNN. Democrats *are* afraid that they'll get Ailes cooties from Fox.

Beware the cooties!

Oh please.

This is a little weighty for the drive thru leftys but read it and weep, munchins.

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

"Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample. "

" Survey research has shown that an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal. For instance, Elaine Povich (1996) reports that only seven percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992, compared to 37 percent of the American public.[2] Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986) and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) report similar findings for earlier elections. More recently, the New York Times reported that only eight percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry.[3] This compares to 51% of all American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush's campaign, 93 contributed to Kerry's.[4]

These statistics suggest that journalists, as a group, are more liberal than almost any congressional district in the country. For instance, in the Ninth California district, which includes Berkeley, twelve percent voted for Bush in 1992, nearly double the rate of journalists. In the Eighth Massachusetts district, which includes Cambridge, nineteen percent voted for Bush, approximately triple the rate of journalists.[5] "

"However, contrary to the prediction of the typical firm-location model, we find a a systematic liberal bias of the U.S. media. This is echoed by three other studies--Hamilton (2004), Lott and Hasset (2004), and Sutter (2004), the only empirical studies of media bias by economists of which we are aware. "

"Next, we compute the difference of a media outlet's score from 50.1 to judge how centrist it is. We list these results in Table 4. Most striking is that all but two of the outlets we examine are left of center. Even more striking is that if we use the more liberal definition of center (54.0)--the one constructed from congressional scores from 1975-94--it is still the case that eighteen of twenty outlets are left of center.

The first, second, and third most centrist outlets are respectively Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN's Newsnight with Aaron Brown, and ABC's Good Morning America. The scores of Newsnight and Good Morning America were not statistically different from the center, 50.1. Although the point estimate of Newshour was more centrist than the other two outlets, its difference from the center is statistically significant. The reason is that its margin of error is smaller than the other two, which is due primarily to the fact that we collected more observations for this outlet. Interestingly, in the four presidential and vice-presidential debates of the 2004 election, three of the four moderators were selected from these three outlets. The fourth moderator, Bob Schieffer, works at an outlet that we did not examine, CBS's Face the Nation.

The fourth and fifth most centrist outlets are the Drudge Report and Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume. Their scores are significantly different from the center at a 95% significance level. Nevertheless, top five outlets in Table 4 are in a statistical dead heat for most centrist. Even at an 80% level of significance, none of these outlets can be called more centrist than any of the others.

The sixth and seventh most centrist outlets are ABC World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News. These outlets are almost in a statistical tie with the five most centrist outlets. For instance, each has a score that is significantly different from Newshour's at the 90% confidence level, but not at the 95% confidence level. The eighth most centrist outlet, USA Today, received a score that is significantly different from Newshour's at the 95% confidence level.

Fox News' Special Report is approximately one point more centrist than ABC's World News Tonight (with Peter Jennings) or NBC's Nightly News (with Tom Brokaw). In neither case is the difference statistically significant. Given that Special Report is one hour long and the other two shows are a half-hour long, our measure implies that if a viewer watched all three shows each night, he or she would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news. (In fact, it would be slanted slightly left by 0.4 ADA points.)

Special Report is approximately thirteen points more centrist than CBS Evening News (with Dan Rather). This difference is significant at the 99% confidence level. Also at 99% confidence levels, we can conclude that NBC Nightly News and ABC World News Tonight are more centrist than CBS Evening News.

Another implication of the scores concerns the New York Times. Although some claim that the liberal bias of the New York Times is balanced by the conservative bias of other outlets, such as the Washington Times or Fox News' Special Report, this is not quite true. The New York Times is slightly more than twice as far from the center as Special Report. Consequently, to gain a balanced perspective, a news consumer would need to spend twice as much time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading the New York Times. Alternatively, to gain a balanced perspective, a reader would need to spend 50% more time reading the Washington Times than the New York Times."

CNN is a bad parallel. Having Fox News hold the Democrats debate is roughly equivalent of having Katrina vanden Heuvel (publisher of The Nation) host the Republicans debate.

It makes sense to go to someone you feel will give you a fair hearing. It doesn't make sense to be afraid of the others or to avoid them when they *offer to let you speak*.

Debates are pretty standard no matter how the minutae are agonized over. The participants are asked questions and allowed to answer them, often in turn on the same question, and usually given turns to respond to the other participants and usually given some small amount of time to mention anything they feel was missed that they'd really like to say.

There is NO down-side to a Democrat appearing in a debate hosted by Fox other than the disapproval of Soros and the simple fact that *any* debate presents a risk.

The Dem candidates are undoubtably all heaving a great sigh of relief that they don't have to worry about sticking their foot in their mouths so early in the campaign season. This is nothing but a handy excuse.

And if the Republican candidates accept and then turn down a debate hosted by The Nation it would be similar cowardace.

You think Giuliani would be afraid of The Nation?

Synova, we've seen enough of Fox News to be rightfully suspicious. They KEEP making "mistakes" like declaring Libby "not guilty". They actively try to link Obama to Osama and Hussein using his NAME as a link! These are not innocent mistakes or objective reporting. The Democrats DID make a mistake originally when they agreed to work with Fox. But unlike the Republicans, Democrats don't stick with their mistakes...they try to learn from them.

I think Giuliani should be suspicious of getting a fair opportunity to express his views from a debate held by The Nation. Scared? No. I don't think the Democrats are scared either. They're just not stupid.

They actively try to link Obama to Osama and Hussein using his NAME as a link!

And Ted Kennedy is in cahoots with them!

Better tighten up that tin foil hat, Fox may be reading your brain waves right now !

So... this is about agreeing to work with Fox?

I knew a man, a friend, who disaproved of the man a close relative was marrying and he refused to attend the wedding at all because he viewed it as an *endorsement* of the marriage.

I thought that was stupid.

I think your argument is stupid as well. There is nothing about letting Fox host a debate that so much as implies approval or endorsement of the network. It's a chance to speak, to get the message out and let people hear the candidates and compare them.

The left-Dem insistance on a test of ideological purity is chilling.

well I posted a lenghthy comment... held for some reason...

Bottom line is...

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

Read it (nope, sorry, it's not your typical fastfood info nugget) and weep.

I even bet you can figure out the parts I posted in bold...

Mike, are you unaware of that Fox hyped Obama's middle name as if it was important? Are you unaware of the kind of spurious reporting Fox has been doing on this? There's no tin foil hats involved...it's

I think that Giuliani would see it as an opportunity.

If he's not allowed to fairly express his views it will be obvious to anyone watching. A debate isn't an interview that happens privately, is edited, and then published with no chance to show what was taken out compared to left in. What is there to fear from a debate?

In any case, yet again we've come to the point where the assumption has to be that the audience is too stupid to twig to any unfairness and react accordingly.

Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as the Washington Post, USA Today, NPR's Morning Edition, NBC's Nightly News and ABC's World News Tonight were moderately left. The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC's Good Morning America. Fox News' Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks' evening news broadcasts. All of our findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.

Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as the Washington Post, USA Today, NPR's Morning Edition, NBC's Nightly News and ABC's World News Tonight were moderately left. The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC's Good Morning America. Fox News' Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks' evening news broadcasts. All of our findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.

Survey research has shown that an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal. For instance, Elaine Povich (1996) reports that only seven percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992, compared to 37 percent of the American public.[2] Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986) and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) report similar findings for earlier elections. More recently, the New York Times reported that only eight percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry.[3] This compares to 51% of all American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush's campaign, 93 contributed to Kerry's.[4]

These statistics suggest that journalists, as a group, are more liberal than almost any congressional district in the country.

However, contrary to the prediction of the typical firm-location model, we find a a systematic liberal bias of the U.S. media. This is echoed by three other studies--Hamilton (2004), Lott and Hasset (2004), and Sutter (2004), the only empirical studies of media bias by economists of which we are aware.

Synova --

My argument has nothing to do with suggesting that holding the debate at Fox would be an endorsement of Fox. I was merely noting that it would help Fox further the Republican agenda, something the Democrats don't want to do. It's hard to say what exactly Fox would do...they've distorted the news and smeared people in so many ways...but it's easy to imagine the questions themselves being accusations against the democrats, rather than actual question about policy and positions.

Syllabucks --

Not relevant. We all know that The Nation is biased to the left and that Fox is biased to the right.

The fourth and fifth most centrist outlets are the Drudge Report and Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume. Their scores are significantly different from the center at a 95% significance level. Nevertheless, top five outlets in Table 4 are in a statistical dead heat for most centrist. Even at an 80% level of significance, none of these outlets can be called more centrist than any of the others.

Fox News' Special Report is approximately one point more centrist than ABC's World News Tonight (with Peter Jennings) or NBC's Nightly News (with Tom Brokaw)

Special Report is approximately thirteen points more centrist than CBS Evening News (with Dan Rather).

The New York Times is slightly more than twice as far from the center as Special Report.

Publicus:
Not relevant.

Well, that resolves that. When someone argues that the facts are 'not relavent' because 'everyone knows' otherwise, they're beyond the reach of reason.

I think that Giuliani would see it as an opportunity.

If he's not allowed to fairly express his views it will be obvious to anyone watching.

Maybe. But I think it would be a disservice to voters if Guiliani had to spend his time in the debate explaining why he had an extra-marital affair with Judith Nathan, or answer questions about his alleged earlier extra-marital affair with Cristyne Lategano. Or talk about his impotence that resulted from his brush with prostate cancer.

It's not a matter of brave or cowardly. It's about being stupid or smart.

It's extremely relevant... your guys are whining that Fox is too conservative and yet the facts refuse to conform to that claim.

Democrat cowards led by Harry Reid who is led around by the nose by his kook fringe.

The issue is less about how the debate might be conducted in terms of fairness and potential bias and more about the legitimization of FOX as a news entity. As pointed out above, FOX News ownership and management (Murdoch and Ailes) make no secret of their partisanship. The major networks, in spite of all the howling about left-leaning bias, are mostly owned by centrist/conservative entities, NBC/GE, etc., most of whom seem comfortable allowing both sides to be fairly represented most of the time.

FOX exists to promote and further the rightwing/neocon political agenda in this country. This should be clear to anyone who watches. Just because you might agree with it doesn't make it any less sinister. Given the systematic deconstruction of the airwaves as a public serving entity that has taken place over the last 25 years this is, unfortunately, where we're at. When mass communication through the air began, a few wise people realized the potential danger of centralized control and set up the airwaves as a public trust. What a joke that has become.

FOX "news" should continue doing what they do best; titillating us with vapid, shallow infotainment, throwing soundbytes devoid of substance at those in general public whose attention span is been reduced to the time it takes to devour a Big Mac and fries, and leave politics to those who crave a little more balance in their diet.

Well, that resolves that. When someone argues that the facts are 'not relavent' because 'everyone knows' otherwise, they're beyond the reach of reason.

Tell me how your argument that the media overall is liberal is relevant to the argument that a biased Fox News (or The Nation) could negatively affect the nature of a debate?

And, do you disagree that Fox is biased to the right, and The Nation is biased to the left?

Personally, I hope Fox does 1 of 2 things... either broadcasts a debate with a host asking questions of Democrat primary participants that whimped out or refuses to cover any of the crybaby Democrat primary candidates at all.

How about the League of Women Voters?

They sponsor many debates and they clearly lean left with an agenda.

Will the whiners refuse their debates?

Hah!

By your criteria Publicus, not one single media outlet should be able to sponsor and event.

Right.

Too bad, your judgement of Fox based on your criteria fails so miserably.

"But unlike the Republicans, Democrats don't stick with their mistakes...they try to learn from them."

Yeah..called "Cut and Freaking Run!"..LMAO!.. Careful what ya say Trolls!.. KOS is watching!

It's extremely relevant... your guys are whining that Fox is too conservative and yet the facts refuse to conform to that claim.

So, you claim that Fox is NOT biased towards Republicans? If that is your claim, then it IS relevant. I also believe your claim is wrong. We simply disagree. You may think Fox News is fair and balanced. I think that it actively pushes the Republican viewpoint to the level of promoting unsupported smears and putting direct lies in text on the screen. And I think it would use the platform of a Democratic debate to further smear Democrats. And, I believe it would be stupid for Democrats to waste their time getting involved with such nonsense.

Honestly, we all know that Fox News (sic) is a Republican propaganda organization masquerading as a news organization. They're not fooling anyone. Why should the democrats go along with the charade?
Posted by: Publicus at March 10, 2007 07:42 PM

Is that really the point you want to make? Couldn't a valid argument be made CBS is a democratic "propaganda organization masquerading as a news organization?"

But that's not the point is it? Show me a single presidential debate in history that was extremely slanted to one side or the other.

I mean if you really want to play that game lets got to a potential source of this "outrage."

/sarc/
NBC (I believe) fixed the lighting to make Nixons beard more pronounced on camera to aid their "favored" candidate JFK.
/sarc off/

By your criteria Publicus, not one single media outlet should be able to sponsor and event.

Untrue, of course. I cited two EXTREMELY biased organizations--Fox News and The Nation.

Publicus, "but it's easy to imagine the questions themselves being accusations against the democrats, rather than actual question about policy and positions."

What I'm saying is that IF SO, it would be clear to the audience and would not damage the candidates unless they are completely hopeless. The White House press corps does that sort of thing all the time, posing "questions" that are basically long policy statements or statements of supposed "fact" and not really questions at all. This is something that a president will have to deal with, so what's the rub?

Not that I approve of that behavior from journalists, but supposing it for this debate I don't see it refecting badly on the *candidates* at all.

Yeah, that miserable left leaning League of Women Voter crowd...like THEY could ever run a debate!

http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=About_Us

Is that really the point you want to make? Couldn't a valid argument be made CBS is a democratic "propaganda organization masquerading as a news organization?"

Go ahead and make it. What do I care about CBS? Of course, CBS isn't headed up a left-wing equivalent of Roger Ailes, but that doesn't mean CBS doesn't lean left.

Of course, this is bringing us off topic...

And I think it would use the platform of a Democratic debate to further smear Democrats. And, I believe it would be stupid for Democrats to waste their time getting involved with such nonsense.
Posted by: Publicus at March 10, 2007 08:47 PM

And I'll ask you the same thing, go back and read the transcript (link above) from the 2003 Fox hosted debate.

There were no sings of your claim then.

What's different now?

So, Republicans...why are you so hot and bothered about the Democrats pulling out of the Fox debate, if you don't think it would have hurt the Democrats?

What's different now?

Have you not noticed how much nastier politics has become since 2003? THAT's what's different now.

groucho --

You don't understand the Republican viewpoint. To some Republicans, the League of Women Voters is an evil organization like the ACLU. And "civil liberties" is a code word for helping the terrorists.

I said: "I think that Giuliani would see it as an opportunity. If he's not allowed to fairly express his views it will be obvious to anyone watching."

Publicus said: "Maybe. But I think it would be a disservice to voters if Guiliani had to spend his time in the debate explaining why he had an extra-marital affair with Judith Nathan, or answer questions about his alleged earlier extra-marital affair with Cristyne Lategano. Or talk about his impotence that resulted from his brush with prostate cancer. It's not a matter of brave or cowardly. It's about being stupid or smart."

I SAY: He'd better be ready to answer those questions! He's going to be asked them and he better be ready to do so. It will show the questioners for who they are, but that's going to happen too.

It may be a "disservice" to voters but it's going to happen and if he can't manage it then he's got a problem that needs to be solved.

I support Giuliani and if he gave such a lame excuse to avoid public exposure I'd be miffed to say the least. My opinion of Giuliani would be destroyed. It would be stupid and not smart.

Why is it smart for Dems?

How could ANYONE miss it?

That still isn't the point. What you claim is possible for Fox to do is also just as possible if any other news outlet hosted it.

AP, yea possible
CBS, yea possible
MSNBC, yea probable

Or any others. But you keep arguing you're hypothetical til your blue in the face.

Synova --

I'd be interested in what Giuliani would do as president. And I think it's important that any debate focuses on questions that shed some light on that.

marc --

Anything is possible. Someday, Bush might even admit he's made a mistake. My point is that Fox and The Nation are clearly such biased organizations that the problems I suggest are probable.

Pullng out of the debate has hurt the Democrats more than being in it would have, at least with anyone who isn't afraid of Faux Noise cooties.

Why are Republicans (and others) hot and bothered? All in all it undoubtably helps rather than hurts both Fox network and the eventual Republican candidate who will be running against whoever wins the Dem nomination. The only people *happy* are MoveOn and similar types who glory in their power to influence what goes on in the party. When this was set up, the local Dem leadership didn't see a problem with it... they *weren't* afraid of Faux cooties. They were pressured to withdraw.

Hot and bothered? More like in awe.

Synova --

Well, then if you believe that the Democrats pulling out of the Fox "News" thing is good for the Republicans, congrats! I'm happy for you!

Point 1. We aren't "hot and bothered" by the Democrat coardice, we are mocking them for it.... BIG difference.

Point 2. What I believe about Fox doesn't matter because I've given OBJECTIVE proof of their centrism.

If CNN labels Giuliani "The Impotent Ex-Mayor of NYC" on TV, I'm sure you'll be anxious for him to appear on a debate on CNN...

Point 2. What I believe about Fox doesn't matter because I've given OBJECTIVE proof of their centrism.

Yeah. You've got the objective proof. It's indisputable! You're dreaming if you don't recognize that Fox is a very active propogandist for the right wing. But, that's ok. Dream on.

Publicus: "I'd be interested in what Giuliani would do as president. And I think it's important that any debate focuses on questions that shed some light on that."

Yes, it's important and it's what I want to know as well. But the fact that questioners in a debate might divert to his private life isn't reason to avoid a debate. If some left leaning organization behaves so badly it's not going to reflect on Giuliani but on their own selves. Double points for him if he can deal with it with style.

Oh, and I notice groucho doesn't agree with you that it's not about legitimizing Fox by dealing with them, in fact he said that's exactly what the issue is.

Post from 8:38 "The issue is less about how the debate might be conducted in terms of fairness and potential bias and more about the legitimization of FOX as a news entity."

Clearly you are unable to read or unwilling to read that which is contrary to your limited world view.

Good luck with that.

Synova --

BTW, I hope the impotent, philandering ex-mayor of NYC who you like wins the nomination...

Are you guys also all hot and bothered that Mitt Romney is a Morman? (I'm not.) What if he proposed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a sacred bond between a man and several women?

Publicus: "If CNN labels Giuliani "The Impotent Ex-Mayor of NYC" on TV, I'm sure you'll be anxious for him to appear on a debate on CNN..."

YES!

And can I get a witness?

If CNN did something like that I would most certainly expect him to take the high ground. To be petulant would be a huge political mistake. Taking your toys and going home is something children do, not presidents.

Clearly you are unable to read or unwilling to read that which is contrary to your limited world view.

What are you talking about?

Really Pubby, you shouldn't let your knee jerking be quite so obvious.

Why do you find it necessary to demonize all everything with which you don't agree?
Fear?
Ordinary callousness?
Penis envy?

Hey Publicus, Giuliani is impotent. I realize you don't care about that anymore than you care that Romney is Morman but I thought I'd mention it anyhow.

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

Yes, good luck to all you Dims who are too stupid to realize your blunder.

We really, really appreciate it.

Hey Publicus, Giuliani is impotent. I realize you don't care about that anymore than you care that Romney is Morman but I thought I'd mention it anyhow.

Synova --

Yes! I think you get it! That's my imitation of Fox News!

It's also not important to me that he was married for 14 years to his second cousin, Regina Peruggi and that marriage was annulled because he didn't get the required dispensation from the Church.

Oh isn't this fun... a lefty meltdown, complete with useless GOSSIP.

Yes! GOSSIP disguised as "news". Just like Fox News!

I've read Victorian novels where the romantic couple were *first* cousins. It's sort of freaky but historically accurate.

Still, I think thou doth protest too much.

I'm sure you don't care that Romney's great-great someone or other had a dozen wives either (well, a big number anyhow.)

Why are liberals such prudes?

Why are liberals such prudes?

LOL! Okay. I give up. You ARE funnier than I am...

So here's what I wonder...

IF, everytime Brit Hume refers to the Democrat presidential hopefuls, he adds "who backed out and refused to participate in a scheduled debate hosted by this network"... will that make him a right wing hatemonger or a TRUTH teller?

"LOL! Okay. I give up. You ARE funnier than I am.."

And don't you forget it. ;-)

"pucker puss" (lee lee) (RTP) (RM), Mast(sock?),grouchie,pubichair--just how do you know that Fox is bias to the right? If you don't watch it how would you know? Could it be that all lefties are watching to get the latest. Could this be why FoxNews swamps all other networks combined? Just puzzling as to how our lefties above know so much about Fox.
As to the debate there is just one answer--the Demos are afraid they would get their ass handed to them on a platter. Now if Mr. Marshmellow were holding it the Demos "might" join in (if they could furnish the questions). Wonder where "mast" came from? To bad I don't know jackshit about computors.

If you don't watch it how would you know?

I DO watch it...for as long as I can stomach.

Good thing they discovered penicillin before our school system started turning out idiots I see in this thread.

First off, with the country split, the only way to win to grab some of the other guy's voters. Preaching to the choir, which is was the Democrats want to do isn't very helpful in that respect.

Secondly, Ailes joke was at Bush's expense not Obama's.

And it was a funny joke, too.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/tmwst070308.jpg

Good thing they discovered penicillin before our school system started turning out idiots I see in this thread.

Ummm...if you READ what people have been saying on this thread, you'd know that the "joke" was barely mentioned. We were discussing the wisdom or lack of wisdom involved in the Democrats choice to withdraw from the Fox News debate. But thanks for insulting us anyway...

Wow, two things I've learned from reading this thread.

1. Publicus is an idiot.

2. Publicus is an idiot.

I love learning new things every day. Carry on.

Publicus:

And, do you disagree that Fox is biased to the right, and The Nation is biased to the left?

A study done by UCLA political scientist in late 2005 concluded that Fox News and the CBS Evening News had biases of equal statistical magnitude but opposite direction.

So, despite your wrongly held belief that Fox News is some 'extreme right wing' news organization, the data concludes otherwise.

I'm glad the Democrat politicians are doing this... I simply shows the country what cowards and loons they really are.

Here ya go MikeSC, Murdoch admitting his joke of a network tried to push the Bush side of the picture. You probably could have found it yourself, had you used the google and typed in Murdoch and Davos.

How about a link that WORKS?

They KEEP making "mistakes" like declaring Libby "not guilty".

It was a charge-by-charge update. Note: CourtTV did the EXACT same thing in THEIR coverage.

Mike, are you unaware of that Fox hyped Obama's middle name as if it was important?

The media claims Plame was covert.
NBC/GE, etc., most of whom seem comfortable allowing both sides to be fairly represented most of the time.

There isn't an INDEPENDENT study out there that agrees.

Anything is possible. Someday, Bush might even admit he's made a mistake. My point is that Fox and The Nation are clearly such biased organizations that the problems I suggest are probable.

In 2004, in the CBS-sponsored debate, Schieffer asked Bush to respond to the odious lie of a desire to reinstate the draft.

Infinitely more biased than ANYTHING FNC has ever asked a Democrat. Ever.
-=Mike

The issue is less about how the debate might be conducted in terms of fairness and potential bias and more about the legitimization of FOX as a news entity.

Groucho, are you seriously arguing that the Democratic Party is the single entity in this country that controls who gets a "legitimate" tag and who doesn't? That's not only arrogant - it's downright frightening. The press should be independent of - not dependent on - political parties or organizations.

As pointed out above, FOX News ownership and management (Murdoch and Ailes) make no secret of their partisanship. The major networks, in spite of all the howling about left-leaning bias, are mostly owned by centrist/conservative entities, NBC/GE, etc., most of whom seem comfortable allowing both sides to be fairly represented most of the time.

Unlike many of the liberals in this thread attacking Fox News (apparently), I don't watch it so I will have to take Groucho's word for this. However, I will say that I believe that every person on this earth has biases. I trust the ones willing to admit those biases. The fact that Groucho believes that NBC, etc "seem comfortable allowing both sides to be fairly represented most of the time" speaks to HIS bias in my opinion.

FOX exists to promote and further the rightwing/neocon political agenda in this country.

Groucho, that is just silly.

Fox exists to make money - just like NBC, ABC, etc.

This should be clear to anyone who watches. Just because you might agree with it doesn't make it any less sinister. Given the systematic deconstruction of the airwaves as a public serving entity that has taken place over the last 25 years this is, unfortunately, where we're at. When mass communication through the air began, a few wise people realized the potential danger of centralized control and set up the airwaves as a public trust. What a joke that has become.

Oh, I absolutely agree with Groucho on this one - although not quite in the same order.

There was a systematic effort made to control the airwaves and the message. When it's message became clearly tilted in one direction, people searched out other sources for their information (see Internet) resulting in the huge losses we see today in both the network news control and the major newspapers around the country.

FOX "news" should continue doing what they do best; titillating us with vapid, shallow infotainment, throwing soundbytes devoid of substance at those in general public whose attention span is been reduced to the time it takes to devour a Big Mac and fries, and leave politics to those who crave a little more balance in their diet.

Apparently, then, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc have the same viewers. LOL!

You have a better chance of seeing Brittany or Anna Nicole on those networks than a serious review of the news.

I think that it actively pushes the Republican viewpoint to the level of promoting unsupported smears and putting direct lies in text on the screen.

I had to laugh at this quote from Publicus.

Replace the word "Republcan" with "Democrat" and it describes CBS exactly.

Were they not the network that headlined a report based on documents allegedly handed over to a well known anti-Bush crank by a unknown man at the bidding of an unknown woman as absolute fact?

Go ahead and make it. What do I care about CBS? Of course, CBS isn't headed up a left-wing equivalent of Roger Ailes, but that doesn't mean CBS doesn't lean left.

If you listened to this week's news, Publicus, you saw that the new producer of CBS's nighly news - chosen by the networks top brass - was Clinton's advisor on Gennifer Flowers, produced 60 Minutes during the Rathergate issue, and was Al Gore's debate coach.

And that is what CBS' admits to .....

You don't understand the Republican viewpoint. To some Republicans, the League of Women Voters is an evil organization like the ACLU. And "civil liberties" is a code word for helping the terrorists.

Publicus, Publicus, Publicus ...

I really don't understand the tendency of some on the left to ASSUME that people are too stupid to read what's put in front of them.

I was invited to join the League of Women Voters. I was prepared to do so believing - erroneously - that the League took no stance on political issues.

After seeing their orientation packet, I called my sponsor and asked if she had seen it. Having been a member for years, she had not seen the latest version. Not only did I not join, but she quit.

Among other things, the League - at least the chapter I was asked to join - demanded a committment to absolute pro-choice.

Given that you are arguing that the Democrats were wise to not work with Fox News because you view them as biased, I find it hypocritical - or uninformed - of you to make this comment about Republicans not being fully supportive of the League of Women Voters.

I don't think, however, that any Republican candidate should refuse to participate in the debates sponsored by the League as a result. That's where we differ.

Are you guys also all hot and bothered that Mitt Romney is a Morman? (I'm not.) What if he proposed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a sacred bond between a man and several women?

And Publicus uses the Seinfeld "not that there's anything wrong with that ..." defense.

Of course, Romney's Morman background bothers you or you wouldn't have mentioned it.

Now, you may not oppose it, but you wanted to make sure that it was mentioned as a "scare tactic" - in the same way that Kerry and Edwards made sure to make Mary Cheney part of the last election cycle.

Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader for the Democrats in the Senate, is also a Morman with the same standing - by all accounts - in the church as Romney. Has he proposed a Constitutional Amendement for the same purpose? No, and isn't any more - or less - likely to do so than Romney is.

"Given that you are arguing that the Democrats were wise to not work with Fox News because you view them as biased, I find it hypocritical - or uninformed - of you to make this comment about Republicans not being fully supportive of the League of Women Voters."

"I don't think, however, that any Republican candidate should refuse to participate in the debates sponsored by the League as a result. That's where we differ."

The League of Women Voters is definately not neutral in any way that counts, even if they wanted to be when they started out. Any woman who is not liberal and Democrat knows that it takes an active choice to escape the lie of "women's issues" and separate one's self from the assumption that all women *of course* are liberal in their politics.

Should any Republican shun the league of Women Voters because of that? NO! They sponsor political events. Shun something sponsored by ANSWER perhaps, but I don't really expect liberals to go speak at Oral Roberts university either.

As for the propensity for "liberals" to bring up personal smears, or what they believe are smears, to gain political points. It didn't work when Kerry and Edwards did it with Mary Cheney. There is a lesson to be learned but which obviously hasn't been learned. The soft, breathless, warnings that Giuliani married his second cousin, Romney is a mormon, or any number of gleeful "outings" show the hearts of the persons saying these things and what those persons think of homosexuals and believers and also about conservatives. It puts the bigotry out there for the world to see, and it's inescapably those who would use their "friends" this way that are shown to be the bigots.

I am one of many who called Mr. Collins to ask him to drop Fox. The Fox corporation is an engine of
bias and misrepresentation, not a bona fide news organization. Our corporate masters have succeeded
again and again in persuading ordinary Americans to vote against their own interests. No useful purpose
could be served in permitting Fox to host an exchange of Democrats' views, rather, doing so would
only serve to impute legitimacy to Fox, which has
and deserves none.