# Bush-Kerry Debate: Watch Along Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 1, 2004, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963 "2004-10-01T00:58:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 26
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/501 "2004-10-03T07:05:40Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Well, at least Hannity has Colms to balance things out a bit. Only if you use “a bit” as a euphemism for “a microscopically minute amount.” ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/502 "2004-10-03T09:47:06Z")
Pervert, you’re all over the map, as usual. You said: > [@](#): > > Pardon me if this seems to literal. But what interest would Germany, France or Russia suddenly have in Iraq if Kerry were president? Are you saying he woudl distribute spoils of war? Are you saying that he would pay them something? What pray tell. No, I wasn’t saying Kerry would pay them. Duh. They wouldn’t _suddenly_ have an interest in Iraq; they would have the same interest that they’ve always had, except Bush wouldn’t be snubbing them any more. Doesn’t seem too complicated to me. I have no idea what you’re going on about in your previous disaster of a post. ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/503 "2004-10-04T15:19:05Z")
First off, please excuse me for not responding sooner. I had other fish that were howling to be fried. (I may be wrong, but I believe howling fish are one of the early signs of the apocalypse.) Also, I’m losing interest with this subtopic. To be frank, this simply isn’t as important to me as going after certain parties who have tried using the Straight Dope Message Boards to validate certain smears against Kerry or countering the pro-war hysteria that once seemed like such a good idea among pretty much the same crowd now using scat to fingerprint the Democratic nominee. > [@John Mace](#): > > When you base a conclusion on a faulty premise (ie, Fox will rarely, if ever, report negative news about Bush), there is no reason to accept your conclusion as being valid. > [@John Mace](#): > > I think they would have reported that the polls showed Kerry “lost in some polls and tied in others”, if I udnerstand your question correctly. If this was reported in a show like Hannity and Colms, the former would emphasize the polls favoring Bush and the latter would emphasize those favoring Kerry. > [@John Mace](#): > > The “whole point” of Fox News is to make money. > [@John Mace](#): > > You asked a hypothetical about how Fox would report certain polls, so I gave a response based on how they had reported other polls in the past. I don’t know any other way to respond to such a hypothetical unless all you wanted was my opinion. Unless you think there is something inherently unique about debate polls. Sorry to have allowed some facts to get in the way. 😕 Now, Mr. Mace, let’s start out by getting something straight. Despite what you may think, when it comes to Fox New’s fealty in reporting poll results you are NOT arguing the facts. See when you say “They routinely post all the major polls in their newscasts” or "Fox has reported polling results regardless of which they go” that’s not stating a fact that’s stating an opinion. What you are saying is that, in your judgement, Fox is reporting them all the same. But your judgement about Fox is not — I repeat, not — a fact. That they have shown poll results favoring Kerry previously is, I’m sure, quite true. But your assertion that they have shown all poll results without slanting is an opinion is merely an assertion (and if you think Alan Colmes’ perceptions get as much play as Hannity’s I really do wonder about your powers of observation). See, being a successful propagandist requires striking a delicate balance: You want to put forward as much as possible only the facts (to say nothing of groundless assertions) that support your side but not to the point where you wind up looking like Lyndon LaRouche. That means acknowledging bad news occasionally, like the fact that Kerry kicked Bush’s butt in the first debate. And, of course, the entire of my first remark, that if even Fox says Kerry won the debate then it absolutely must be true is premised on the fact that they do sometimes report bad news. > [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t know what [Fox New’s] mission is. I love this remark. For one thing, it’s a little like saying you’re really not sure whether Michael Jackson may have had plastic surgery or not. Another reason I really like it is because it contradicts your two earlier points. First you criticized me for presuming that Fox would not willingly report news favoring a Democrat, then you said the whole point of Fox News is to make money and now you’re saying that you have no idea what Fox New’s mission is. This, of course, doesn’t make any sense. If you honestly have no idea what Fox New’s mission is then you simply cannot claim to know if they’re objective or inform us as to what exactly is the “whole point” of their network. Your points have utterly imploded on themselves and no thanks to me either. Now, how do we know Fox is conservatively slanted (which is sort of like asking, “how do we know Anna Nicole Smith is voluptuous”)? First off, Rupert Murdoch owns it. Rupert Murdoch is notorious for being aggressively right wing. He does not own one newspaper or magazine that’s considered liberal. (The Weekly Standard, a small but influential journal in Washington, for example, has William Kristol, Dan Quayle’s former rent-a-brain as its editor in chief. As of last fall, was still claming that it had secret evidence of an al Qaeda/Saddam connection. We all know how wll that panned out.) In fact the naked right-wing slant of his papers is so extreme it’s considered a joke. For example, a few months ago, The New York Post launched an extremely ugly attacked on the 9/11 Commission, treating it like a partisan star chamber poisoned by those nasty Democrats (despite being chaired by a Republican), but let out nary a peep after it released its report which went extremely easy on the President, considering what they had to work with. (He does slant his news in favor of the Chinese government on his Asian network but that’s because the Chinese outlawed satellite dishes until he started showing fare more to their liking. Way to go supporting freedom, Rupe.) It also just so happens that the head of Fox News is Roger Ailes. Roger Ailes is a former producer of Republican propaganda. He produced the infamous Willie Horton ads and Rush Limbaugh’s TV show. That’s just NOT the person you put in charge of a genuinely objective news network. So, what about Fox’s actual reporting? I’d recommend seeing “Outfoxed” which is not perfect but does have many telling points. For one thing there’s a great moment showing one of their reporters brown-nosing the president while waiting for their interview to start and talking about the reporter’s wife who works for the Republicans. Now, there’s a fecund environment for a hard-hitting exchange. > [@John Mace](#): > > I will assert that if you watch nothing but Fox News for a week, there will be no significant news item you will miss… Really? You might want to check out PIPA’s report on public misperceptions about the war in Iraq. It took some widely believed statements that were false (Saddam was behind 9/11, we found the WMDs, etc.) and compared the rate of belief as it related to primary news sources. Fox was far and away the richest source of viewer misinformation. 80% of their viewers believed at least one false statement to be true. By comparison those effete liberal bastards who listen to NPR came in last at 23%. Obviously, they must hate America. [www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/](http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/) Media\_10\_02\_03\_Report.pdf I now retire from this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/504 "2004-10-05T09:51:43Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > The fact that Bush is president does not in and of itself mean that France, Germany, nor Russia have an interest in a peaceful resolution to the Iraq war. The fact that George Bush is president means that it’s political suicide for the governments in France, Germany or Russia to go anywhere near Iraq. With a new administration in place, the option is at least open. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963.md?page=25)