Kucinich said. "No one is further removed from Fox's political philosophy than I am,

but fear should not dictate decisions that affect hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of others around the world who are starving for real leadership."


(This was conveniently left out of the FOX transcript as well as anothers SMEAR post. It is wrong to take a candidate out of context. Yes he said this as well.)



Cancelled Presidential debates smack of manipulation by ‘run and hide’ candidates

Submitted by Press Secretary on Sun, 2007-03-11 11:33. Press

AUSTIN (TX) -- The cancellation in the past two days of two planned nationally televised debates because of candidates' "scheduling conflicts" and unwillingness to participate smacks of "manipulation by some candidates who would rather run and hide than defend their records and their positions on the war," Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said today while campaigning in Texas.

Widely publicized Presidential debates in New Hampshire in April and in Nevada in August were cancelled after some candidates either backed out after agreeing to participate or declined invitations to attend.

"Whatever their excuses, some candidates are clearly trying to avoid any head-to-head public debate where they will have to answer tough questions -- questions about their votes in favor of the Iraq war, their votes in favor of trade policies that have wiped out millions of American jobs, their votes in favor of abridging Constitutional rights by approving the Patriot Act, and their collaboration with insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations to deny Americans adequate health care protection."

Kucinich said, "It's an insult to the voters, and the height of cynicism, for candidates to refuse to take the public stage and subject themselves to public scrutiny."

The New Hampshire debate was announced on January 12. Only two days ago, Kucinich pointed out, did some candidates back out because of "scheduling conflicts."

"Is it possible that the real conflict was having to take the stage to defend their votes to fund the war?" Kucinich asked. Votes in the House and the Senate on a $100 billion supplemental appropriation are expected soon.

Other candidates were trying to sidestep the Nevada debate because they claimed that the sponsoring television network, Fox News Channel, was conservatively biased.

"If you want to be the President of the United States, you can’t be afraid to deal with people with whom you disagree politically," Kucinich said. "No one is further removed from Fox's political philosophy than I am, but fear should not dictate decisions that affect hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of others around the world who are starving for real leadership."

Kucinich said, "The public deserves honest, open, and fair public debate, and the media have a responsibility to demand that candidates come forward now, before the next war vote in Congress, to explain themselves."

"I'm prepared to discuss the war, health care, trade, or any other issue anytime, anywhere, with any audience, answering any question from any media. And any candidate who won't shouldn't be President of the United States."

http://kucinich.us/node/3532

And what Kucinich calls acting out of fear I call demonstrating self-esteem.

:headbang:
rocknation

do well in the primary because people will realize we need him.

Not sure what you meant about genocide?

than wipe out the entire Democratic "race." They're not going to take a breather in the interest of fairness and balance for a trivial little thing like a presidential election. We owe Fox news nothing and they're given us even less. I'm glad Dems are telling them that they'll have to find someone else to kick around.

:headbang:
rocknation

and the ability to switch television channels every once in a while are the only "enemies" we should be striving to influence.

:headbang:
rocknation

He believes the publicity will drive his campaign and he's right.

Get real! Just sit down and listen to those authoritarian loving a**holes on "Fox and Friends" OR five minutes of O'Reilly's rants? Then you'll know that FOX cable news is ALL ABOUT supporting A REPUBLICAN PLATFORM AGENDA.

I fear poor Dennis has thrown common sense by the wayside. :(

He's on The Big Vacation ... go ahead Denny, enjoy that beautiful wife while you tilt at windmills. :eyes:

Basically all this has done is piss off people that were warm to Kucinich.

If he breaks 15% in any of the primaries up thru Super Tuesday, I will be amazed.

1.5% is more like it---pretty close to his 2004 numbers.

I think you'll be proved wrong.

I've beena fan of Dennis since before he became my mayor in Cleveland. He got shafted by the utilities and the banks here and got an unfair wrap on the default.

I support most of his proposals and applaude him heartily for his stands on most issues, especially the Iraq war.

But realistically he has a small base, little money and little chance of raising more. He knows, and I think know if you are honest with yourself, that his campaign is about his message of peace and forcing the debate to peace and not about any realistic expectation of getting to the WH.

I truly wish he could. If he got the nomination I'll be there for him making calls and knocking on doors but I'll do that no matter who the Democratic Party nominates. The stakes are too high to do otherwise.

I firmly believe that he will be a candidate who does much better than expected.

Ok, yes, there is virtually no chance he will win but I'd rather push a honest man who can't win than a "politician" that can. Also he has worked near miracles before.

If Pitt's description of the last campaign is any indication.

He'll be lucky if people remember his name, just like last time.

He just got handed a bad FEC decision (fined $130K) which normally wouldn't be an issue but he hasn't been able to generate much fundraising yet. When the FEC decision was handed down his reported coffers for this campaign were a measly $13K. H also owes his other campaigns money still.

He did alright in 2004 for a lower tier candidate bringing in about $8M.

the organizational structure normally used in the newspaper business (which should also apply to FoxNews and all the other news outlets.)

Basically it is strictly understood that editorial and reporting are seperate and never mix so that the political philosophy represented by the editorial board do not influence the reporting of news.

Fox is the worst violater of this principle in the broadcast media, IMHO. Tune in any newscast on Fox and you will hear editorializing.

So Dennis, please take another look at the situation at Fox and rather than crticizing your political allies do something about getting a new "fairness doctrine" made the law of the land. If you did that you'd be doing allot to bring honest reporting to America again and probably helping prevent future wars based on false information!

Transcript for the video "Kucinich Discusses Fairness Doctrine on Lou Dobbs"

Submitted by Ceil on Sat, 2007-01-20 15:36.

LOU DOBBS: Concentration of media ownership, Internet neutrality, and oversight of the Federal Communications Commission are among the issues the new Chairman of the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee plans to take on. That and, of course, running for the presidency.

Join me, now, with Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Congressman, it's good to have you with us.

DENNIS: Thank you very much, Lou. I appreciate a chance to be on your show.

LOU: You have spoken out for the first time. I have not heard the words "Fairness Doctrine" in a very long time. But you are compelled to look at that issue and to bring it front and center to the national agenda. Tell us why.

DENNIS: Well, years ago, when I was teaching at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, I talked about the creation of the Federal Communication Commission. When it was first created in 1934, Lou, it said that all broadcast licensees should serve in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. The Fairness Doctrine derived from the public interest, and that is that there should be an uninhibited marketplace of ideas. That's what the First Amendment is all about. And so what I've asked is for our Committee's work to include a revisiting of the Fairness Doctrine in this year of 2007.

LOU: And you plan on holding hearings. As you know, there is a school of thought that the Fairness Doctrine, which, of course, hasn't been around, now, for some 20 years, was stifling and therefore also contravening in the First Amendment, Free Speech. How do you respond to those who would charge that?

DENNIS: Well, there have been some real changes in media in the last 20 years, since we've seen the Fairness Doctrine go. We've seen 50 large media companies suddenly shrink to six. And so this idea of uninhibited exchange of ideas in the marketplace needs to be looked at in the era of media consolidation.

To see, for example, "How in the world did we end up in this war in Iraq?" One study said that only three news sources who opposed the war were able to get on the air, out of 393 in the study. What does that say? Was there an uninhibited exchange of ideas?

How could we have the trade policies which we have, for example, if there was a free and uninhibited exchange of ideas over NAFTA and GATT and the WTO.

I think that this is an opportunity for America to revisit the issue of consolidation in the media, how it relates to whether the media is serving in the public interest. And so my Committee is going to have hearings on that.

Dennis is putting on blinders about Fox. Fox is not, as currently structured and operated, a legitimate news organization. They are, by all conventional definitions of the term, a propaganda organ of the right!

I'm sure Dennis is for the fairness doctrine. He is clear on that. What is unclear is why he has blinders about Fox, it almost seems he is using this to seperate himself from his opponents on the left. To make himself stand out above the crowd, if you will. Dennis doesn't need that, he is unique.

I respect his right to take the position he has. I also disagree with his position and think he needs to re-examine his position.

However I also understand that he really does want to win and I don't think this such a vast sin. I don't like it either but he needs to get his name out one way or the other and few on the left or the right are going to change their mind about fox news. The publicity will increase his support. It's good marketing.

about the legitimacy of Fauxsnooze. Perhaps he has another target audience in mind.

like the ones that do watch it, and may listen to him there.

but then, i don't listen to fauxsnooze, so whether he speaks there or not, i'll hear/read his words from other sources, and support him completely otherwise.
dp


edited for clarity

receptive ear in the typical Fox audience.

I sorry but as a long time fan of Dennis (going back to his city council days) I espect more of him than to align himself in defence of a propaganda organ of the right for political gain.

I have come to expect more of Dennis and he has disappointed me this time. I almost beleave that he may not be aware of hte extent to which Fox (the supposed news reporting arm that is) has moved to the right and abandoned real journalism in favor of the "yelow" variety. Maybe someone close to him could tape their "newscasts" (not their editorial shows like O'Rielly) and play him a few hours so he can see what they have become. Maybe he just hasn't been watching!

look at the opening line of this OP.

so, perhaps at the best, he gains some new supporters. Makes up for the fickle ones he will lose that find his openess to wanting his voice heard unpleasant.

c'est la vie.
dp

n/t

regardless of how you feel about HolyJoe ...

dp

n/t

do you see this as DK's point?

dp

rightly seen as not in the best interests of truth, justice, the American way, the Democratic Party, and the selling of the view of most on DU.

Is this "DK's point" is of course impossible to know since one can not know another's mind - I doubt that it is - but the comment sucks, the thought sucks, and the action goes into the box called "DK" that one should/must evaluate before voting.

Even in a situation like this...


However, Kucinich not only is looking foolish trying to claim Fox is a legitimate news organization, he is insulting the one subset of people that will support him...

Perhaps this is his "Sister Souljah" moment, dissing the left a bit to try and attract more moderate voters...but it is only going to drive some of his supporters away from him...he simply will never have appeal outside a very narrow section pf the party...

If he pulls in 3% overall in the primaries I would be shocked...

will have a vast effect on his credibility and I don't think its much of a sin.

It's what Democracy is all about...

Good luck!

:thumbsup:

dp

...... there is no way no how that anything Fox is involved with is going to be "open, honest and fair".

The fact that you don't get that doesn't say anything good about your own perceptions.

He is making a political calculation, and a bad one at that!

It's not a tremendous use of his talent but what would you do if they don't want you to be heard.

to lend credibility to Foxnews then he has made a pact with the devil.

I actually only thought it a bit odd that Dennis took this stance but the more I think about it and the more I hear the less I like it.

The other candidates left him no choice.

Dennis had a choice and he chose to lend his name and credibility to FoxNews rather than his allies on the left.

Every news station is sponsored by some massive conglomerate that specifically caters to what they perceive to be their interests.

Fox is NOT news it is PROPOGANDA. It is the present day equal to Pravda. It is bought and paid for by the enemies of Dennis and all he stands for. An now they have taken his words and distorted and used them against his allies.

No one had a problem going on fox for 04 and now because they don't want to go on record they avoid the debate all together for a crappy reason. Just because Fox hosts the event doesn't mean they can control all the parameters.

that shows Fox hosted a Democratic Presidential debate in 2004? I'm getting a little old and my memory is failing which may explain my lack of recall on that!

i've had to read the transcript, so where does it say Dems are bad?

dp

He called Democrats cowards using the Maher clip to supprt him, talked over Dennis when he tried to reply, inplied Soros and MoveOn were puppet masters of the party etc.

I am not talking about Dennis speaking ill of other Democrats. He was merely the foil to let Gbson do his blustering.

But the fact is the soundbite is Gibson's accusations and BS during which Dennis calls them a legit news org.

I'm sure they will oblige, seeing as how they are such a "legitimate news organization."

Sorry, but the fact that FOX manipulated DKs words in a way that they could be taken out-of-context doesnt really help DK's position on FOX news at all, does it? It confirms what everyone else but him already knows though.

with the other candidates. He also realizes that politicians are elected on soundbites and money. So if he wants to get elected he needs to go after the soundbites to increase his funding. That's politics. It sucks but if he is elected he'll work on the issue.

I note that your response did not adress the irony I pointed out- so here it goes again:

The fact that FOX did this to his transcript should show you just how naive he is and just how correct Edwards is.

Funny as hell- DK goes on FOX to defend them as "legitimate" and they make a liar out of him by manipulating the very transcript where he says this- only to prove Edward's point!!!

I dont know which is worse, FOX's cynicism for doing this to his traqnscript or DKs stupidity for not assuming they would do such a thing.

DK really needs some new friends besides FOX news..

BTW I never said Fox manipulated the transcript. I said this part was conveniently left out, however the transcript does include a line with the same meaning. If anyone else had read the transcript except to SMEAR Kucinich then they would have noticed.

So now you are changing your story- now that I've capitalized on the irony you failed to catch.

You got a point. My intention was to counter Elmer's smear and I feel I've been fairly successful.

I we might agree that Hillary supporters should be the last people to attack DK for siding w/ FOX news (AKA Hillary's fundraisers...)

"Sorry, but the fact that FOX manipulated DKs words in a way that they could be taken out-of-context doesnt really help DK's position on FOX news at all, does it? It confirms what everyone else knows though.".

And if you see the video Gibson is shouting over some of his points.

the debate schedule so it would benefit the "elite". He was right to do so.

Which ironically, shows how wrong DK was about FOX and how right Edwards is.

If he does, what would you think or feel about it?

But let's get back to the manipulated transcript- dont you find it ironic that they did this to DK-just as he was informing us all about how "legitimate" FOX is?

LOL!!!

"BTW I never said Fox manipulated the transcript. I said this part was conveniently left out, however the transcript does include a line with the same meaning. If anyone else had read the transcript except to SMEAR Kucinich then they would have noticed."

Sounds like manipulating the transcript to me.

Are we parsing whether the word "legitimate" does or doesn't apply to Fox, or whether or not Democratic candidates should have anything to do with them?

As it is, Edwards has drawn a line in the sand with FOX.

If he flip-flops in the future, then I am sure everyone will point it out.

Even if you go on Fox, they'll just cut and edit what you say to weaken your argument.

so they don't have to go on record.

Funny as hell- DK goes on FOX to tell us all how "legit" they are- and then they intentionally take whole phrases out of his transcript for his trouble.

This is waht happens when you lie down with dogs- you wake up with fleas.

Edwards was right, DK is wrong.

BTW I never said Fox manipulated the transcript. I said this part was conveniently left out, however the transcript does include a line with the same meaning. If anyone else had read the transcript except to SMEAR Kucinich then they would have noticed.

Sounds like manipulation to me- unless we are defending FOX news once again.

don't have to go on record? There will be a transcript for all of the debates hosted by any organization. What are you talking about?

If Dennis thinks that is the problem then he should call for a debate on the same date hosted by a legitimate organization.

n/t

But DK was the one who said they were.

And Fox isn't the only place where it's done.

on the others due to their own?

just curious.
dp

Could you explain?

worn by others that blind them from the message DK was putting forth here.

No where in this article does DK say Fox is 'legitimate news'. It's assumed by those that are pushing a message they are focused on, ie, the way blinders make the horse focus on the finish line.

the messages missed?
"manipulation by some candidates who would rather run and hide than defend their records and their positions on the war,"

"Whatever their excuses, some candidates are clearly trying to avoid any head-to-head public debate where they will have to answer tough questions -- questions about their votes in favor of the Iraq war, their votes in favor of trade policies that have wiped out millions of American jobs, their votes in favor of abridging Constitutional rights by approving the Patriot Act, and their collaboration with insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations to deny Americans adequate health care protection."

"It's an insult to the voters, and the height of cynicism, for candidates to refuse to take the public stage and subject themselves to public scrutiny."

"Is it possible that the real conflict was having to take the stage to defend their votes to fund the war?" (Votes in the House and the Senate on a $100 billion supplemental appropriation are expected soon.)

"If you want to be the President of the United States, you can’t be afraid to deal with people with whom you disagree politically," Kucinich said. "No one is further removed from Fox's political philosophy than I am, but fear should not dictate decisions that affect hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of others around the world who are starving for real leadership."

"The public deserves honest, open, and fair public debate, and the media have a responsibility to demand that candidates come forward now, before the next war vote in Congress, to explain themselves."

"I'm prepared to discuss the war, health care, trade, or any other issue anytime, anywhere, with any audience, answering any question from any media. And any candidate who won't shouldn't be President of the United States."

but i suspect you knew this.
peace
dp

Dweller: "No where in this article does DK say Fox is 'legitimate news'. It's assumed by those that are pushing a message they are focused on, ie, the way blinders make the horse focus on the finish line."

Looks like you are 100% wrong.

Someone needs to take their blinders off for sure, but it's not the folks who are quoting DK.

http://kucinich.us/node/3532

as posted by the OP, and as i posted this thread, it does not state that.

provide your link.
dp

edit: unless of course, your source is Fox News, which i know it is. Apology not expected. But now for my advice: Remove your blinders.

Enjoy your crow.

dp

Unless DK did not say this, then my source is not FOX news- my soucre are the words that came out of DKs mouth.

Are you really saying tha DK never said these words? Really?

and you've not supplied it, so i will for you.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258803,00.html

snip ...
"This is a partial transcript of "The Big Story With John Gibson," March 13, 2007, that has been edited for clarity." (bold mine)

"First of all, I don't have any criticism towards Nevada Democrats, but I do feel that as Democrats — and particularly as someone who wants to be president — you have got to reach out to people. I think it is fundamentally wrong to try to tell any particular news organization what it has to cover or what it should not cover or what it should say."

snip

"I would say that I think we need a politics which does not condemn people. But what I am going to say is that FOX is a legitimate news agency that has the ability to reach out to millions of Americans, so why not get that message out? That is what I want to do, and all Democrats should be capable of doing it."

"FOX is a good litmus test because if you can stand the scrutiny of FOX, with what you stand for, and all of the FOX News agencies that gather the information, their anchors can ask you questions, well that is part of what the test is of leadership.

Again, we should be thinking about a campaign that unites people. And I am ready to reach out to conservatives."

oh, and don't forget the disclaimer,
This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.

peace out
dp

Sorry- I logged off of DU at 6:00PM and never went back on.

Are you really- REALLY trying to say that those were not the words coming from DKs mouth?

Should we look to the actual video in order to clear this up?

Like I said, If FOX did indeed alter what he said, then that does ZERO to help DK's argument- it only proves why people like Edwards are right to marginalize FOX news.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?031307/031307_bs_dennis&Big_Story&Dems%20vs.%20FOX&acc&Politics&-1&News&344&&&new

Quote starts around 1.26 mark

must be a time zone thing

dp

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?031307/031307_bs_dennis&Big_Story&Dems%20vs.%20FOX&acc&Politics&-1&News&344&&&new

Start at minute 1.26 for this

KUCINICH: I would say that I think we need a politics which does not condemn people. So I am not going to condemn them. But what I am going to say is that FOX is a legitimate news agency that has the ability to reach out to millions of Americans, so why not get that message out? That is what I want to do, and all Democrats should be capable of doing it.

FOX is a good litmus test because if you can stand the scrutiny of FOX, with what you stand for, and all of the FOX News agencies that gather the information, their anchors can ask you questions, well that is part of what the test is of leadership.


It couldn't be any more clear. You do your candidate no favors by denying reality and you look extremely foolish.

n/t

I came into this thread without knowledge of DK's comment (fox legitimacy) for one b/c i don't listen, watch, nor read fox, period.

i referred to the OP's link, which is the subject at hand, and pointed out that i'm reading it, and it doesn't include what you were accusing him of, and wanted to know where your fact came from, your source.

i had to look for it at fox, and having found it, supplied it upthread. i am not denying anything.

But i do have enough insight to understand what he said then: i don't believe he would have had much success ON fox news saying 'fox is not a legitimate news source' for the millions of viewers of fox would have just dismissed him then. I believe upon reading his comment, and understand it to mean
"a legitimate news source for the millions of fox news viewers', and in that comment, he would be correct. He was reaching out to them for support. Is that a mistake?

obviously you think so. I don't. I notice there are many members here that through time have admitted their support of Repugs in the past who for whatever reason have changed their minds, and realize what a mistake they made. Whatever reason they came to that realization i would applaud, and Kucinich's appearance on fox may have similar consequences. He does claim to be reaching out to conservatives. I wish him luck, for he doesn't appear to have as much support from the liberal side as i had hoped.

I apologize for giving you and others some idea that i was denying reality, having seen the evidence provided. Again i interpret his statements differently as an appeal to the viewers of fox.

my other point though, which is fairly obvious in numerous Kucinich threads here, that there are those that will come into threads about DK and point out their distaste for him, attack his looks, his ideas, etc without fail. I've been around DU long enough to know this to be true. I suppose that is their right to do so, i choose not to participate in other candidate's threads that i don't support. I believe in people's right to support whoever they want, hopefully they have taken the time to explore their candidate fully. I admit i missed out on the comment you find so offensive and appreciate you cluing me in.

with that said, i consider the matter closed on this subject. Good luck with your support of Edwards.
As a native NC'er, and a resident of the town he lives in presently, i follow the news concerning him regularly. Doesn't get my support at this point (long history) unless of course he ends up with the nomination, and at that point ... i'll pull the lever. I hope you might grant the same consideration if by some miracle it ends up to be DK. Hopefully he will have convinced some of the deluded fox viewers to support him too.

peace
dp

DK is the one who is relying on FOX, not me.

I find it ironic that such a "legitimate news organization" would do such a thing.

So has CNN, not to mention the Washington Post and the NY Times.

They all screen out certain ideas, from people like Dennis, as well, just not as much as Fox. Why doesn't Dennis speak out about that more instead of going on Fox and ignoring it?

Is that the point?

Seems like if anything, he set back the left's potential charges of mass media bias by legitimizing the worst-of-the-worst- FOX news.

n/t

And to DK as being the first to LEND it to them.

n/t

Who knows- if we can keep DK out of the way, it might send a signal to all the others that we are not going to play their games anymore.

i see. I thought that was the job of Fox news.

glad to see you have your focus on.
dp

...and accuse other DEMS of hiding from FOX.

I dont see them keeping him out of the way at all right now- they seem to be the only ones willing to give him the spot-light.

I do have my focus on- if that fool is going to go around telling everyone how "legitimate" FOX is, then yes, I want him out of the way.

in all places instead of looking the other way and making excuses for it.

DK should have been busy developing his own communication networks over the last four years if he had any clue how to organize. That's what we should all be doing.

I think all the candidates have communication networks. But it's not either/or.

He is absolutely correct on this issue. Courage, America!

Giving credibility to the repuke smear machine and begging for more. No thanks!

Nobody's afraid to go on Fox News. The "fear" meme is a RW talking point.

This full quotation is even more damning for Kucinich.

Dennis, I love you man, but you couldn't be more off-base on this one.

Why exaggerate?

And then still, it's not like there's never a valid cause to talk about fear.

The RW uses fear to have us give up the freedoms for which the terrorists supposedly hate us so much. Kucinich mentioned fear in an entirely different context - so in this case it isn't really a RW talking point.

Kucinich said:

Yes, the public does deserve that. Which is why there is no way that Faux Noise should be involved with this. If they want to host a Republican debate, they should knock themselves out.

Or agree to hold it on Air America. :rofl:

His hearts in the right place, but Fox is a propaganda machine.

Good piece on Fox and debates from FDL:

-snip-

But it's the sweep of the disinformation campaign that suggests a genuine pattern of propagandistic manipulation of the public. The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a study in October 2003 of public knowledge and attitudes about current events, focusing on media consumption habits. The study examined three generic misconceptions about the march to war in Iraq – alleged WMDs, purported Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and supported international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. While three-fifths of Americans held at least one of these misconceptions at the time, speaking to the poor quality of American punditry, Fox News viewers stood out – their viewers were "three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions."

More than 80 percent of Fox News viewers had a basic factual misconception about the war in Iraq, which were coincidentally used by the Bush administration to justify their policies at the time.
This should not be a surprise, as the leadership of Fox News is heavily tied into the Republican Party apparatus.

Fox News hurts America. It's actively making people dumber and more susceptible to governmental manipulation.

Falsification of information is bad enough for an outlet channel that calls itself a news organization, but the overt ties to the Republican Party are deeply disturbing for our democracy as a whole. This is not an ideological argument about diversity – Fox News is not really a conservative news channel, it is a Republican propaganda and surrogate operation, as Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch seem to have baked into their business model a wholesale allegiance to the Republican Party.

Can I just get everyone to shout that together real loud one time?

FOX NEWS IS NOT NEWS!

Okay? Democrats, are you listening? Fox News is nothing but a propaganda mill. Any and all stories and commentaries on Fox News end the same way, i.e., Republicans are good and Democrats are bad. Period. They barely even play at a pretense of objectivity.

Any attempt by Democrats to make nice with Fox is doomed from the outset. The Nevada debate was a set-up, an ambush. Nevada Democrats did the right thing by telling Fox where they could stick it. We need more of this, please. And we, the netroots, need to pound this into the heads of any Democrats who will listen:

Fox News is determined to destroy you. In their ideological casino, all the games are fixed and the house always wins. Unless you're Joe Lieberman, Fox is going to find a way to discredit, drown out, and humiliate you. It is their sole purpose in the world. Nothing that they say will ever, ever truly be "fair and balanced".

-snip-


http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/13/late-nite-fdl-were-not-your-fucking-monkeys/