Who knows? I presume that the Democrats who agreed to the debate initially would maybe have watched the 2003 debate and formed some sort of opinion one way or the other. I’m not trying to be flippant here, but when you’re presented with an offer from a network to host a debate, wouldn’t the very first thing you check on be the prior debates they hosted? Ask around the office for opinions, review the tape, whatever.
If they agreed to the debate without realizing that FoxNews is a right leaning network that hosts an unfair debate, then the Dems have way bigger problems than supporting the wrong network.
As I said, I just pulled the first three questions in order. If you want to peruse the whole thing, you’re welcome to do so. I do think, though, that those questions demonstrate the type of framing that Fox wanted to have of all the issues. Dean doesn’t support the troops or their families. Kerry is a flip-flopper. Pulling the troops home is admitting defeat and would throw the region into chaos.
I would hope that PBS would not choose to frame every issue from the bullshit wingnut side of things, but your mileage apparently varies. Of course, you’re not a Democrat either, so they should take your advice on how to run a campaign and a political party for what it’s worth.
I don’t think it’s in a party’s best interest to set themselves up for the worst framing of every issue and then a summary of “Democratic Candidates Offer Grim View of America” by the people who like to call them the Democrat Party.
Yeah, it was gutless of the Nevadans to try to use the joke as any part of their excuse. They should have simply said, “Hey, we thought about it and we were wrong. We fucked up.”
That is true. But your underlying assumption that everyone watching is a partisan hack is not. Some people decide to watch Fox because they feel comfortable with its political slant, just as some people decide to watch PBS for the same reason. But other people watch because it’s the channel with the best reception, or it has the prettiest women, or they like the format better, or any number of other reasons. And some people watch both, hoping to synthesize both extremes into something more moderate.
The summary will take place no matter who hosts the debate. Fox will spin the Democrats as nutjobs just as you have spun Fox the same way (“the bullshit wingnut side of things”).
If PBS just tosses out puff-balls, then PBS is as bad as Fox.
A candidate who advocates bringing the troops home “right now” ought to have to acknowledge what the consequences would be. I may not be a Democrat, but I agree with Al Sharpton on this issue. The troops should be brought home. Right this goddam minute. It is fair for you to ask me whether I know what the consequences of doing that would be, is it not?
Asking what the consequences will be is not the same thing as proposing that the consequences will be admitting defeat and chaos. The first is a fair question, the second is loaded with wingnut bullshit.
It’s pretty straightforward. If every question is set up with a premise that the Democrats have to defend against, then they end up sounding defensive.
Only if they respond defensively. The press always asks questions that way in these debates.
In 2004, Bob Schieffer asked President Bush, “Flu kills thousands of people every year. Suddenly we find ourselves with a severe shortage of flu vaccine. How did that happen?” The President had to defend himself against the implication that he is responsible for thousands of people dying from flu.
Next, he asked, “Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who’s being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?” The implication is that the President not only has put people out of work, but has made it hard for them to find new jobs. The President had to personalize his economic policy similar to the way Dukakis had to personalize his death penalty stance.
There’s no reason Bush shouldn’t be asked those questions, whether it’s on Fox or PBS. How he answers them is up to him.
With Sharpton, the implication that pulling out troops literally this very day will cause massive upheaval and suffering is a fair one. I am willing to acknowledge that the result will be chaos, but that the troops should be pulled out anyway. Sharpton should be willing to acknowledge the same thing.
The Fox-based question would be: “Some people suggest that you don’t care about people suffering from the flu and their families. How do you respond to that?”
And again, the Fox question would be: “You’ve claimed that your economic strategies would create jobs, yet we’ve lost many jobs overseas. Wouldn’t you say that your economic strategy is a failure?”
Well, if you’re willing to presume this, then it must be legitimate to frame Democratic primary debate questions this way. Of course, you forgot about the “admission of defeat” part. And of course, you previously suggested that the appropriate question would be “What do you think the consequences of a withdrawal would be?”
But going through the Fox network is a dumb way to do it. The open-minded people will still be able to hear them if they go through a different medium.
Maybe, I think there are many people that still use only one principle source for their news and Fox must have some of them. I got sick and tired of TV news and rarely watch it. I watch The Daily Show far more than the news. I use the Internet and NPR for most of my news. Many people who regularly watch the news are probably like my parents and get most of it from a single source. They still rely on CBS despite steadily dropping credibility since Walter Cronkite retired all those years ago.
Shouldn’t the network that sponsors any debate have a principled news organization? I submit that Fox just isn’t qualified in that regard. Why should any party support or reward a tabloid journalism safe-haven with the massively high ratings/ad revenue guaranteed to be generated by a debate? (Unless their hands were in its pockets)
As for the Democrats pulling out: better late than never*.
*which should also be their platform on troop withdrawal from Iraq.
People are always free to watch ‘Fox’ that night then, eh? There might even be a good ‘Seinfeld’ rerun on. Oh, that’s right, it’ll be in August. Every channel will be in re-runs come August.
Of course people could choose to watch a debate concerning the current events of America and decisions concerning its future. Or they could watch ‘Seinfeld’. I hear it will be the one where Jerry buys his Dad a Cadillac… :rolleyes:
I don’t watch debates, because I don’t watch the news on television. But I always supposed that a proper debate would pose a question, and give each participant the opportunity to answer it. It strikes me that the three questions quoted by Hentor the Barbarian, as phrased, do not lend themselves to being put to the participants who were not named in the setup to each question.
Is that a debate, or is that a round-robin third degree?
TV debates are a hot mess. I doubt very much that journalism schools in the USA teach, e.g., Oxford debating rules–or care.
Hentor’s being an ass. Of course politicians need to be able to answer & defend themselves against slanted questions & slanted commentary, not run away. I don’t want the head of the US government to be some silly ninny who whines, “But they were asking me loaded questions!” If the Democratic candidates (well, let’s be clear, John Edwards, since he’s the one who pulled out) were afraid of that, then such candidates would not be qualified for the office under any circumstances.
But that’s ridiculous. Pols “answer” questions by reframing them all the time. Law schools do teach argument & debate. The problem isn’t the tough questions.
There are two possible legitimate reasons, & that Fox is devoted to destroying them plays into both, but *neither *is that they simply shouldn’t speak to their enemies in their enemies’ den:
To deprive Fox of income, considering that Fox is the explicit mouthpiece of the corporate big-business circus-media libertarian/classical liberal interest class that under the name “conservative” pushes the GOP around. I’m not convinced that that’s remotely legit. Fox can continue to make its money off of the entertainment division, & their clip shows (“When Animals Attack!”) pull more profit than a commercial-free political snoozefest.
To avoid a situation where Fox will control the camera & the editing. If Fox is setting the rules & owns the tapes, they can, in theory, use that context to give their slant even more legitimacy. The problem is, the Dems just turned & ran away like the little yellow running dogs Fox can now say, with total credibility, they are. It’s cake for Fox to claim that the “librul media” are painting the Dems better than they really are. The Dems just cost themselves credibility. Which is only OK if they expect that Fox would deliberately reedit their speeches to falsify their stands, & use physical control of the process to strengthen the lie.
Frankly, I think it was just a desire to “delegitimize” Fox: “You’re not a real news organization!” But understand that Fox & the GOP are doing that to PBS all the time. It’s dirty pool there, & it’s a bad way for people who want to run the country to think. Yeah, Fox News is a bunch of scoundrels. There are scoundrels in the world. But not to engage & take them on, but just to “not acknowledge” them is to be W & Condi refusing to talk to Syria. Unworthy.
I’m being an ass for pointing out the loaded bullshit within the questions that were posed last time? Why is that?
Of course we should ask that our leaders answer tough questions, you dumbshit. But if one side throws themselves in the lion’s den, and there isn’t even any comparable lion’s den for the other side to throw themselves in, well, it kind of makes it more likely, rather than less, that the latter group will end up leading the government. But that is the intention then, isn’t it?
And honestly, when was the last time that the Republicans stopped one of their scurrilous charges because the Democratic candidate gave a good response to it.? The answer of course, is that they don’t stop. Their goal is just to repeat it as often as possible, and if they get to do that under the guise of a legitimate campaign activity like a debate, well, then there really must be something to it.
If somebody asks you a loaded question, or begs the question, or makes ad hominem attacks, which people will do to you all the time in politics, you call them on it & reframe the question if there’s really one in there. I suppose if they insist on doing it, & when you try to tell them they’re wrong make out like you’re the problem (& say, “we’re running out of time” to stop you from explaining why they’re being unfair), you have a problem.
But calling for a boycott of Fox at this point plays into the desires of Ailes, etc. They want the appearance of totally partisan divided media in this country; they want to paint anyone not partisan for them as partisan for the enemy. I’m not convinced it will convince any of the dittoheads who watch it.
Oh god, the fucking “that’s what they want” game again. You’re talking like Fox will do anything different because the Democrats cancelled. They won’t. They’re bitching about the cancellation, but it’s not going to change their day-to-day operations.