Out-FOXed
March 11th, 2007 | by Jersey McJones |The Gray Lady reports…
“…Nevada Democrats announced on Friday night that they had decided to cancel a debate in August on Fox News.”
Bloggers had been pushing for some time for the DNC to boycott FOX “News” from debates and interviews, but there was reluctance as the Dems did not want to play into FOX’s dirty little paws when it comes to being “Fair and Balanced,” but good ol’ Roger Ailes went and made a little quip that became public and became the perfect storm of an excuse to cancel…
“It is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don’t know if it’s true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, ‘Why can’t we catch this guy?’”
True, the joke seems aimed more at Bush than Obama, but with FOX “reporting” that Obama had been schooled in a radical Madrass in Indonesia (a lie), and the constant and incessant attacks on all things Democrat over the years, the Nevada Democrats decided they had enough of FOX and pulled the network’s August debate.
Though FOX clearly is the most popular “news” network on the American idiot-box, they’re numbers have been slipping recently. Apparently being wrong all the time can cost a network some credibility. Desparate, they now air a show called the “1/2 Hour News Hour” which is an attempt at “Daily Show”/”Colbert Report” comedy for rightwingers and is about as funny as a funeral and features what sounds like a laughtrack yukking it up and cheering to 2009 “President” Rush Limbaugh and “Vice-President” Ann ‘Edwards is a Faggot’ Coulter. Something tells me it won’t last.
Hopefully, FOX will continue it’s decline in popularity, let alone it’s prestige, which it never really had anyway. The blatant rightwing bias on the network is as internationally infamous as the blatant rightwing bias of it’s Australian maverick owner, Rupert Murdock. Americans, not being the most politically savvy people in the world, have been slow to reognize this. Whether the Nevada Democrats decision will help or hurt FOX is hard to say. Surely, the Hate-Talkers, erstwhile called FOX “News” anchors, will play victims here and beat this cat over the heads of rivals NBC, CBS and ABC, but those networks can use this to their advantage as well - just by keeping quiet. Pandering to the lowest common denominator may work well for FOX, but it probably won’t boost their viewership or trust -or the GOP next election. The lowest common denominator is also the least likely to vote - or to watch serious news shows.
JMJ
21 Responses to “Out-FOXed”
By tos on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
Good! Who wants to see these anti-American terrorist supporters anyway.Imagine if all these religious right-wing whackos banded together and boycotted all your liberal media shows,calling for censorship? There wouldn’t be enough Xanax in the world.
At least now I can watch O’reilly and Hannity that night.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
I guess Democratic candidates can choose not to be interviewed by or not to debate on any news channel they want.
I honestly don’t see what the Ailes comment mentioned in the post has to do with it all. Without more context, if there was anything even the slightest bit insulting to Barak about the comment, the insult escapes me and, as is mentioned, the insult is about Bush’s inaction on Musharaff. Why would any Democrat be upset about Ailes slamming Bush? Mystery to me.
By Paul Watson on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
Craig,
As far as I understand it, Fox, and several right-wing commentators, have been making reference to Barak Hussain Obama, emphasising the second part of the name, and confusing Obama with Osama. Thus, when they again put Obama in place of Osama, this is taken as a fairly serious insult. Of course most of this is derived from sandy’s insane diatribes against Obama and the response to them, so I could be wrong.
By tos on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
“It is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don’t know if it’s true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, ‘Why can’t we catch this guy?’”
It was also about when Ted Kennedy called Obama-Osama. I guess that’s what happens when you are so angry all you see is
bloodshotred.By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
Paul,
Okay, I think I get it now. Dense of me.
By Jersey McJones on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
And you could just see what sort of questions a FOX debate moderator would put to the candidates…
FOX just isn’t a serious enough news outlet to host something as important as presidential debates. They should stick to what feeds their base - Anna Nicole’s death, what Rosie O’Donnell said the other day, etc… FOX’s audience isn’t bright enough for, or really even interested enough in, a serious political debate.
JMJ
By tos on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
“And you could just see what sort of questions a FOX debate moderator would put to the candidates…”
The same kind of commentator a liberal would ask a republican. What’s the matter JMJ do you think they have something to hide? Only want the questions one sided?
Similar to a Tim Russert interview maybe?
How quickly we forgot the commentators during the Bush/Kerry debates.
By tos on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
Paul-
“As far as I understand it, Fox, and several right-wing commentators, have been making reference to Barak Hussain Obama, emphasising the second part of the name, and confusing Obama with Osama.’
And here I thought Bush was the biggest terrorist. My bad.
“Okay, I think I get it now. Dense of me.”
Craig are you pandering again? The joke they refer to is when Kennedy slipped by calling him Osama. And if they talk about the fact he was Muslim you can blame Hillary for releasing that information but she gets to hide behind it because she’s a chameleon.
By Jersey McJones on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
I’m sorry Tos, but I don’t think you’re serious enough for a presidential debate either.
JMJ
By tos on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
And I’m sorry for you JMJ because you are just to angry for a presidential debate.
WAITER! Sense of humor table 5!
By Paul Watson on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
tos,
Is that for you or JMJ?
By Jersey McJones on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
“Angry” - yet another bait ‘n switch catch words cons use to belittle those who disagree with them.
Tos, you’re too conservative to have a sense of humor.
JMJ
By tos on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
JMJ-puleez.
and Paul-I’ve yet to see any humor from Jersey,so you tell me.
By tos on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
“Angry” - yet another bait ‘n switch catch words cons use to belittle those who disagree with them.”
Jersey you just looove tha “Bait and Switch” term when at a loss for words.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
Tos,
Pandering? No. I don’t pander. I say what I mean. I had a “Homer Simpson” moment…you know, where he goes, “Doh!” I just hadn’t made the connection, one that was obvious enough to have been embarrassing to have missed it.
By tos on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
Craig-I guess you missed what I said about the joke being when Ted Kennedy called Obama-Osama. I guess people who don’t know where it originated from will just assume they are referring to Obama as Osama without “getting” the real joke.
By Charlie on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
Tos,
So you won’t be able to watch a presidential debate so that you can watch terrorist supporting anti-Americans like Hannity and O’Really?
That’s just sad…
By tos on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
In fact BOTH Edwards AND Kerry shamelessly tried to insert Cheney’s daughter’s sexual orientation into the public forum in an attempt to alienate conservative voters from the Bush/Cheney ticket.
Now, they didn’t Coulterize their comments, but the intent was clear.It’s not the Republicans who are advocating shutting down a major cable news outlet. It is not the Republicans who are advocating the return of the so-called “fairness” doctrine. It is not the Republicans who advocate silencing their critics on college campuses. How many conservatives would have much of a chance in that kettle of sewage known as Hollywood?
By tos on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
“So you won’t be able to watch a presidential debate so that you can watch terrorist supporting anti-Americans like Hannity and O’Really?”
Charlie don’t take that statement so seriously. It wasn’t meant to be. Maybe my sense of humor is a little dry for you. I was being fatuous.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply
Tos,
I’m not really interested in what the real joke was. I can see why Democrats consider it a slam against Obama. The first part is about Obama. The second part is about Osama. Whether it’s about what Kennedy said or not, that’s an unflattering, even reprehensible joke. Kennedy may have or may not have intentionally slipped when calling Obama, Osama. Ailes hasn’t the luxury of that plausible deniability. Ailes’ joke was deliberate. He can’t claim that he really wasn’t talking about Osama in the second part of the joke. Obama isn’t being sought by anyone in Pakistan, Osama is.
Also, I’m not saying it isn’t funny. It is. But it’s also an outrageous joke and I can understand Democrats taking offense and reacting as they did.
I take a back seat to no one in my disfavor of Kennedy but this issue isn’t solely about Kennedy. It is a joke that deliberately conflates Obama and Osama.
By tos on Mar 12, 2007 | Reply
Craig-They take offense to everything. Okay so the Obama thing may not be the best thing but what crackes me up about them is that Hillary Clinton’s camp released the fact he was a Muslim and no outrage . See they get away with alot of things and republicans get slammed by them and their media. I am sure you seee that. They are just as insulting at times.